Informe ACAT "A World of Torture"

ACAT-France 2011 Report
A World of Torture
with the financial support of the European Union
A World of Torture
ACAT-France is a member of the FIACAT, the International Federation of ACAT.
ACTION BY CHRISTIANS FOR THE ABOLITION OF TORTURE | www.acatfrance.fr
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEFINING TORTURE FOREWORD

From Indifference to Action | franois walter
8 11
INTRODUCTION
15
A Relentless Machine | jean-tienne de linares
GEOGRAPHY OF TORTURE
Americas
|
27 29 31 34 42 50 58 70 79 81 84 92 100 108 116 125 127 130 138 146
Introduction Chile Cuba Honduras United States Venezuela
Asia
Introduction India Kazakhstan Philippines Thailand Vietnam
Europe
Introduction Bosnia and Herzegovina Moldova United Kingdom
Middle East & North Africa

Introduction Algeria Bahrain Morocco and Western Sahara Palestinian Territories Turkey
155 157 160 168 176 184 194 203 205 208 216 224 232 240 251 253 254 263 267
| juan e. mndez
Sub-Saharan Africa
Introduction Burundi Ethiopia Gambia Mauritania Nigeria
ANALYSIS OF TORTURE
Syria: Echoes of a Torture State
23 days in Syrian jails | testimony of khaled sid mohand Torture in Syria: a governmental policy | interview with radwan ziadeh
The Absolute Prohibition of Torture: Defending a Moral Imperative | sandra lehalle Torture as a Means of Criminal Investigation Death Penalty and Torture
| ccile marcel | ric sottas
277
Two Portraits of Torturers in a Contemporary Novel
| interview with jrme ferrari 287
297 309 319 331 343 349 350 359 372 375 377
The Socioeconomic and Cultural Causes behind Torture
Assessment of the Effectiveness of UN Mechanisms for the Prevention of and Fight against Torture | sylvie bukhari-de pontual Thinking and Acting against Torture
| olivier abel
AFTERWORD APPENDICES
| michel terestchenko
Ratification status of treaties concerning torture Lexicon Methodology note List of contributors and acknowledgments Learn about ACAT
DEFINING TORTURE
Torture
Torture presents several characteristic features which, taken as a whole, determine its specificity: An acute pain or suffering, whether physical or mental. A deliberate act resulting from a decision (unlike the occurrence of an accidental act). A torturer acting officially or at the instigation, with the consent or the assent of a State agent (police officer, soldier, prison guard, member of a paramilitary group).1 A specific purpose, such as obtaining a confession or information from the victim, or punishing him for an act committed by him or by another, or intimidating him, or terrorizing him (him or the group to which he belongs), or any other motive based on some discrimination. The intention to harm a person's physical or mental integrity, break his personality, or force him to behave in a fashion he would not voluntarily behave in. The act of torture is the result of all these elements. International law clearly affirms the absolute and non-derogable nature of the prohibition against torture, which has acquired the status of a customary norm.
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The notion of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment includes all measures and punishments intended to cause physical or mental suffering, or to degrade or humiliate a person. Torture constitutes an aggravated form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is as is torture illegal under international law, and particularly under Article 16 of the Convention against Torture. While international law does provide certain indications of what this prohibition covers, no actual definition exists. As the Human Rights Committee* and the Committee against Torture* (CAT) have noted, it is in fact impossible to make a clear-cut distinction between what constitutes torture and what constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Unlike torture, the latter may result from carelessness, as may be the case, for example, of uncertain detention conditions, of food or medicine deprivation. The difference between the two notions also resides in the degree of gravity of the pain or suffering inflicted. Yet this depends on a considerable number of factors, such as the nature and duration of the ill-treatment inflicted, the victim's specific physical or moral fragility, his sex, age, and state of health But this distinction has significant legal consequences, because the international legal mechanisms intended to fight against torture are stronger than those concerned with cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. For the sake of convenience, the expression ill-treatment is often used instead of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in this report.
Definition of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(adopted on 10 December 1984, effective as of 26 June 1987)
The term "torture" means 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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.2 (Article 1)
[1] The word torture may designate the same acts when they are committed by non-state-controlled players, such as members of armed groups (required to comply with the 1949 Geneva Conventions regulating the laws and customs of war and specifically prohibiting torture) or groups exercising de facto authority over part of a territory, or by individuals, when the State has failed to meet its obligations concerning the effective protection of people. [2] Regarding this provision, in its General Observation No. 20 (1992), the Human Rights Committee specified that corporal punishments fell within the scope of the prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This interpretation has been confirmed by the Special Rapporteur* on Torture in 1997 and the Human Rights Commission in 2000.
A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . FOREWORD
11
From Indifference to Action

franois walter , ACAT-France Chairman
We must radicalize the rejection of torture, for if we accept its use once, who can say we will not use it twice or thrice? The issue of torture must become a question of principle: NEVER, no matter where, no matter when. This quote is taken from one of the first documents of ACAT-France, written in 1975. Today, thirty-six years later, who could oppose such a statement? Yet, an attentive observer of what is going on in the 194 recognised States of our planet will note that over 100 of them regularly resort to torture. Yes, more than one country out of every two practices torture: that is our depressing observation here, at ACAT, an NGO which has laboured in the field of human rights, engaged in the struggle against torture for thirty-seven years, but also committed to abolishing capital punishment and protecting victims throughout the world. Unfortunately, current events keep reminding us of this phenomenon which is torture with, for example, the hundreds of summary executions committed in Cte dIvoire, by both camps, during the presidential elections; the Arab Spring, bearer of hopes for the arrival of democracy in a number of countries in the region, but revealing horrible crimes perpetrated by the regimes then in power, whether in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen or Syria, or the persecution of Christians in several States, such as Iraq, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan or China. The information we collect daily reveals the extent of this practice, which was hidden from us or which we did not want to see. When the first edition of A World of Torture came out, in December 2010, our readers reactions strengthened us in our resolve to continue with this publication. Thus, the feedback included the editorial of the weekly magazine La Vie dated 26 January 2011, titled It was written and dedicated entirely to the text of our report on Tunisia
12
FOREWORD . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT
A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . FOREWORD
13
which showed, before the revolution even started in this country in December 2010, the extent of the abuses committed by the administration of former President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Here is what Executive Editor Jean-Pierre Denis wrote at the time: ACAT's analysis of the Tunisian situation proves particularly explicit and detailed. [] Inhabitants of the free world, we remain, through our silences, consenting hostages; voluntarily ignorant, we agree to live in A World of Torture. The very nature of the phenomenon of torture has convinced us of the need to get the word out, to let people know what is happening, most often in shadows. Indeed, torture is always accompanied by efforts to conceal, relativize or even trivialize it. Despite the self-restraint or delicacy which may appear when the opportunity to discuss this scandalous practice comes up, it is essential that we evoke it, unveil it, analyze it, that we might disassemble its gears, that the greatest possible number of men and women on this earth become aware of this curse, grow indignant, and slowly move from indifference to awareness and thence to action. Journalists often ask us this question: Does torture in the world tend to decrease or increase? It is not easy to answer them, because the phenomenon unlike that of capital punishment for example is not quantifiable and can assume unheard-of forms (relocated tortures, systematic rapes as acts of war). Furthermore, it is very important that successes achieved in the struggle to eradicate torture be reported; otherwise, lack of interest or resignation may settle in, in light of the extent and durability of this calamity; this is one way to motivate the citizens of our country, to show them that action does yield result, and to incite commitment. Thus, at ACAT, we manage some 200 releases and several successes each year; I should like to give a few recent examples that warmed our hearts: Afro-American Anthony Graves, the victim of a miscarriage of justice that resulted in his spending eighteen years of his life in jail, twelve of which on death row, was released in October 2010 and, the following month of May, he came to meet his friends from ACAT in Lyon, who had supported him relentlessly during his detention; On 2 March 2011, the last prisoners of conscience imprisoned in Tunisia several of whom were sponsored by ACAT were released; US Governor Pat Quinn, who had received messages from ACAT encouraging him to abolish capital punishment in his State of Illinois, made this decision, in his words the most difficult of his mandate on 9 March 2011. What novelties does this second opus of the report for which we have received the support of the European Union and the cooperation of our international federation,
the FIACAT bring? On the one hand, 23 new countries, from all corners of the world, have been examined. On the other hand, the feature articles touch upon new, theoretical and concrete issues, such as a study of the socioeconomic and cultural reasons which foster the occurrence of acts of torture; a balance of the UN mechanisms for prevention of and fight against this phenomenon; a reflection on torture and human dignity, or a questioning of the evolution of philosophical, religious and Christian thought regarding the practice of torture. In the fight to eliminate torture, we share with other defenders of human rights the requirement that the mistreated or tortured man take centre stage in all our concerns. But for us, ACAT members, this requirement draws its inspiration from the hope Christ's Gospel gives us, and in the example He gave us of a life dedicated entirely to the service of others, particularly to those who suffer: that is the source of our specific character and also of our pride.
A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . INTRODUCTION
15
A RELENTLESS MACHINE
jean-tienne de linares , ACAT-France Chief Executive Officer
Each day, and sometimes each night, I heard people being tortured, I heard their screams rising constantly, in a steady crescendo, until grown men were turned into little girls.
Excerpt from the testimony of reporter Khaled Sid Mohand, jailed in Syria from 9 April to 3 May 2011.
We could not start this report without referring to Syria, where torture is more than ever being turned into a governmental strategy in itself, where the howls of the thousands of battered victims warn: This is the price to pay for revolting. Alas, Syria is no exception in a world where one country out of every two resorts to torture. Yet, this situation, the extent and reality of the practice of torture, remain very poorly known. It is as if, after the fall of the Berlin Wall or of Latin American dictatorships, such methods were confined to a few particularly oppressive regimes. As if, in such States, only a small number of opposition members participating in or supporting some armed struggle was affected. This report, which follows the one published by ACAT a year ago, pursues the same goals: to describe and to understand. First, it complements the snapshot of this world of torture by providing an account of the practices and legislations of 23 more countries from all continents. These fact sheets will allow the reader to discover how insignificant the specificities of each abusive regime are in light of the constants that are revealed. It then continues the reflection initiated in 2010, thanks to contributions from researchers and actors in the struggle against torture, who analyze its multiple dimensions and the driving forces that foster it.
16
INTRODUCTION . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT
17
Torture as an instrument of power

The persistence of the phenomenon of torture is first the result of its effectiveness as a means to hold on to power. Thus, anyone who, for one reason or another, may appear to pose a threat to the State or its leaders runs the risk of being delivered into the hands of torturers. They, their loved ones and friends, and the members of the various groups or communities they may belong to. In all of the countries we surveyed, long is the list of opponents, reporters, bloggers, lawyers, unionists, human rights defenders in short, of all those who represent a form of counter-power who are constantly being harassed or daily prevented from working. They are condemned to live under the permanent threat of being arrested, kidnapped, tortured, jailed after show trials, and sometimes killed by a bullet in the head. People from ethnic or religious minorities are also particularly targeted, from the time their demands for independence or equality are considered destabilizing for the governing authorities. Even if they exercise their rights peacefully, these dissenters (or rather alleged dissenters, in many cases) will too often find themselves labeled as terrorists, thus justifying the arrests, detentions and torture. Supposedly to get information on groups likely to resort to violence, but in fact, to silence any opposition. However, this strategy of terror is not only intended to keep a handful of leaders and their close affiliates in power. By establishing the interrelationship existing in many countries between violations of economic and social rights and practice of torture, ric Sottas, former Secretary General of the World Organisation Against Torture (Organisation Mondiale Contre la Torture, or OMCT), demonstrates that it is simplistic to impute attacks on human rights exclusively to political, ethnic or religious conflicts without considering factors related to the appropriation of land, water or any other source of economic wealth. As proof, he highlights the fact that, particularly in Latin America, the breakdown of dictatorial regimes did not put an end to torture. And he notices the criminalization of the social protest, which means both forced displacement or massacre of farmers and the iniquitous conviction of those who dare to resist (and whose confessions may have been obtained under duress), as well as total impunity for their torturers. Yet, common criminals constitute the majority of the victims of torture, which is far too often a routine practice in their case. Especially if they belong to the most marginalized or disadvantaged sectors of the population.
All citizens arrested by the police, even for minor offences such as traffic violation or burglary, risk being mistreated and tortured. This is what we write about Vietnam. If such observations may be found in most countries fact sheets, it is because, as United Nations Special Rapporteur* on Torture Juan E. Mndez puts it, torture is still used as a tool for investigation in many countries. Investigators are the authors and primary culprits of these current abuses, committed in so many custody facilities. Policemen act out of habit, because that is how they have always done things, and because the lack of resources, coupled to the lack of training, does not prompt them to turn to other investigation methods, such as the search for witnesses or the use of forensic techniques. The responsibility of judges seems to be just as damning, as it is they who admit as incriminating evidence confessions that have obviously been extracted through torture, they who show little interest in whether arrest or pre-arraignment procedures are complied with, they who do not look into the victims complaints, and rarely try abusive police officers. Finally, public opinion that is overly tolerant of such methods cannot be cleared from all blame (see the paragraph titled Torture within each one of us further on). The torments endured by a specific category of prisoners, those sentenced to death, are also studied in this report. ACAT-France Program Director Ccile Marcel, points out that recent developments in case law tend to consider capital punishment as torture, although this trend has yet to be confirmed in international law. There is, in fact, no human way to kill, no mode of execution, that does not provoke, whether by its very nature or accidentally, severe suffering which is likely to last far too long. And, before they even get to this point, inmates on death row are often subjected to detention conditions that are much more difficult to endure than those of other prisoners. Years spent in solitary confinement*, years living in fear of an execution which, as in Japan, may happen at any time or, as in the United States, may be suspended just a few minutes before the injection. As if it were necessary to inflict upon the prisoner sentenced to death conditions that transform the hypothetical future sanction into a day-to-day punishment, writes Ccile Marcel. Let us finally add that, in the 92 countries which have yet to abolish it, the death penalty, whatever its sundry justifications may be, remains the ultimate sign of power. Symbolically, authority belongs to the person who holds the right to give death. In this sense, the relationship between capital punishment and torture is writ large: they are two practices for displaying and retaining power.
18
19
The impunity of torturers

All prison staff members as well as security and intelligence forces officers are potential torturers. In practice, the few investigations or legal prosecutions initiated hardly produce no results. [] Actually, impunity prevails for perpetrators of ill-treatment, torture and other atrocities. These observations, taken from the fact sheets on Gambia and Thailand, apply to almost all of the countries reviewed in this report. They illustrate two of the main features of torture States: on the one hand, the involvement of a large portion of their security services, whether official (police, army, secret services, jail guards) or clandestine (paramilitaries, militias); on the other hand, the near-complete impunity enjoyed by all these agents and their commanders for these crimes. Throughout the world, torturers know that they have little risk to be brought to justice and even less of being convicted. This remains one of the main reasons for the continued and widespread use of torture. Yet, even though much progress has yet to be made, most of these States have, to a greater or lesser extent, adopted a range of legislation to suppress acts of torture. But, where such human rights violations result from some policy, defined or, at the very least, tolerated at the highest level of the State and involving many public officials from all levels of the hierarchy, it is no surprise for us that the existence of legal instruments, no matter how well-suited they might be, weighs little in the face of all these players determination never to account for their actions. In any event, few victims file complaint or even agree to testify about abuse they have suffered. To whom could they complain, when those who tortured them are, themselves, State agents? Why should they take that risk, when they know that by speaking out or seeking justice, they expose themselves and their close relatives to reprisals and perhaps even to further torture? Finally, why should they risk it, when they have no illusion about the capacity and the willingness of the judicial system to conduct an investigation, and to identify to say nothing of prosecuting their torturers? Sooner or later, even the most authoritarian regimes fall. Yet impunity remains. Even long after the events, the state apparatus tends to protect itself and is reluctant to initiate legal proceedings, particularly because it would then have to challenge all these law enforcement agents that took part in the repression, many of which are still in office or remain influential. Omerta and esprit de corps are not empty words in the army or police. Furthermore, victims who can manage to keep up the courage
and willpower needed to launch a legal action, assuming they succeed in gathering the necessary evidence, most often must face statutes of limitation or amnesty laws hastily drafted just after the collapse of dictatorships. The Argentinean generals, former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori, certain Khmer Rouge or the few authors of crimes against humanity who have faced trial in various ad hoc international courts remain the exception: the overwhelming majority of their fellows will probably never be worried. To investigate human rights violations and to work for torturers convictions: these are the missions of the various UN mechanisms for the prevention of and fight against torture, the effectiveness of which is analyzed by Sylvie Bukhari-de Pontual, attorney at the Bar of Paris and Chairperson of the International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (FIACAT). Procedures such as the Universal Periodic Review* (UPR), to which States parties must submit, or the various reports produced by the Special Rapporteur* on Torture have contributed to better document torture cases in many countries and to make specific recommendations to States. Their impact may seem rather limited, but these mechanisms impose moral and political obligations that are not without legal basis. However, they are not genuine jurisdictional bodies, as they have no binding authority over the States.
The dehumanisation of victims

This report aims to give a review as objective as possible of the practice of torture. Nevertheless, while it does not hesitate to describe the various methods used to inflict the greatest amount of pain, it refrains from providing too many specific details concerning the abuses, given the risk of voyeurism inherent in such narrations. In our section on Chile, we write that The most frequently reported techniques are insults, threats of execution, hits, burns, electric shocks, simulated drowning, and mid-air suspension. But the relative coldness of this enumeration should not hide the extreme cruelty of torturers, the importance of the suffering endured, or the deep physical and psychological devastation caused to the victims. To better understand the extent of this brutality, we must remember that several of these methods are often combined, that torturers do not pull their punches, that all parts of the body especially the most sensitive ones are targeted in turn, and that sexual assaults are common.
20
21
Furthermore, physical torture is always accompanied by psychological torture*: sleep deprivation, insults, offences against moral and religious values, mock executions and, perhaps ranking at the top of the list, maintaining the prisoner in a state of absolute uncertainty and dependence: once arrested, cut off from the rest of the world, often blinded, the victim is deprived of his personal belongings, sometimes of his clothes. Whether kept in isolation or held in an overcrowded cell, the victim knows nothing of what awaits him, of the frequency and duration of the torture sessions, of the fate of his loved ones, of what he is being accused of, of how he can put an end to abuse or at least how he can make it diminish, because torments continue even if he speaks, even if he obeys. At the same time, victims are held under terrible conditions. Cells are tiny, poorly ventilated, ice-cold or scorching, and sometimes plunged in darkness. Food provided is insufficient and of poor quality, hygiene is dismal, and adequate medical care which is crucial to repair the damages caused by the beatings is hardly available. Finally, although torture most often occurs primarily in the initial hours after the arrest, it may go on for several weeks or months. Sometimes during the whole period of detention. Upon their liberation, if they survived, tortured individuals react differently. But whether or not their physical injuries have healed, whether or not they appear to have returned to a normal life, all of them, without exception, are forever scarred by what they have endured. Torture seeks to force people to bend to their torturers will, to break their individuality, and to deny them their status of human being. That process passes through identifying and revealing the most intimate faults and weaknesses of the victim; disparaging all his beliefs and the values of the group to which he belongs, slowly instilling the feeling that he is being tortured for nothing; making him feel he has given up and betrayed his own, causing guilt and a loss of self-esteem; and finally reducing him to a screaming, trembling, incontinent, raped body. Less than a man, a mere piece of flesh. A process from which no one escapes unscathed.
Democratic societies too

In his afterword to the report, philosopher Michel Terestchenko draws a necessary distinction between torture States and democratic regimes. Though the latter are by no means exempt from criticism, we should not draw a straight comparison between them, only because in no oppressive, dictatorial or authoritarian country, [such] a report [] could be published and read by all citizens. Having said this, we felt it was crucial, from the very moment this report was conceived, to include a review of States acknowledged as democratic ones. Indeed, since its creation, ACAT-France considered necessary to remain vigilant about our own country situation, because States that claim to respect human rights must face more demanding, and, finally, because recent or current history has taught us that not one of these countries could boast a spotless record in this issue. Since the end of World War II, five democracies have not hesitated to use torture on a large scale. Up to Francisco Franco's death in 1975, Spain was a dictatorship in which torture was part of the everyday arsenal of repression. But habits die hard, and torture remains common in the context of the anti-terrorist fight against the separatist movement ETA. The United States have not ceased resorting to torture, whether through their armed forces in various theatres of operation (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq) or through their secret services. American agents, when not personally torturing, served as instructors to the security forces of the various authoritarian regimes they supported or helped set up. France built a wide-ranging torture system during the decolonization wars of the 1940s and 1950s (Madagascar, Indochina, Algeria). During the 1960s and 1970s, some of its officers exported their counter-insurgency know-how to Latin America. Israel has always extensively practiced torture as part of its conflict with the Palestinians, and was even one of the few countries to actually allow certain methods. Finally, the United Kingdom acted the same way against the IRA during the conflict in Northern Ireland and its secret services have always collaborated closely with those of the United States. Nowadays, the situation described in our previous report has not changed as far as Israel is concerned: People who are arrested and then interrogated in this context [the arrest of Palestinians suspected of posing a threat to Israel's security] speak of a nearly systematic recourse to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and even to torture. Even though the United Kingdom no longer resorts to torture on a large scale, the fact sheet for this country attests that some of its soldiers have engaged in dubious practices in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even more so, it highlights the fact that the
22
23
continuous cooperation with the United States secret services, notably as regards extraordinary renditions*, might have led certain MI6 agents to participate in illegal transfer of suspected terrorists to third countries and in enhanced interrogation sessions. As for the United States, even though the Obama administration has officially banned torture, it has not fulfilled its commitment to close Guantanamo, and it has escalated the policy of targeted killings using drones. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that US secret services have improved their procedures. Similarly, and this is one of the main topics of the fact sheet on this country, the living conditions of inmates in super-maximum-security prisons constitute torture. For nearly all the rest of democratic countries, our concerns focus particularly on dangerous returns of asylum seekers to countries where they risk being tortured, on the numerous instances of excessive use of force by the police, and on the poor holding conditions in most places of deprivation of liberty (overcrowding, resort to solitary confinement*, obsolescence of the premises, or dehumanisation of modern jails). All of these situations have long been decried, but we cannot, as yet, note any significant progress. Finally, and to close this chapter devoted to democracies, let us note that on the issue of the impunity granted to torturers or their leaders, whether military or political, the situation is the same as in authoritarian States. Same denials, same secrecy-defence counter-arguments and lack of investigation, same appeals to the honour of the army, same amnesty laws. Algerian War was followed by no trial, and the abuses committed in Abu Ghraib only resulted in the conviction of a few scapegoats.
Ever since Hannah Arendt's works, especially, we have known of the existence of a banality of evil. Torturers are not perverse psychopaths but, rather, simple men. Human beings who, under special circumstances, can be manipulated to the point of converting into real violence this need to hurt the Other which is dormant within all of us. And, should proof of these impulses be necessary, no doubt would we find it in the morbid fascination exerted by torture. Many of us are likely to be attracted, disturbed, by the story of abuses, by the representations of the hellish torments of the damned or Saint Sebastian pierced by arrows. Novelist Jrme Ferrari attempts to understand how soldiers, who themselves have been tortured, can in turn become torturers, just by thinking they are doing their duty as expected. If torture seemed spontaneously horrible to everybody, it would not occur. For it to work, it must, one way or another, appear under the guise of Good. But these individual psychological decisions are not sufficient to explain how torture systems are created. There must also exist some collective decisions, a fertile soil that favours their development, so to speak. In 2000, a French survey revealed that one person in four deemed torture acceptable in certain cases. What would the ratio be today, after 9-11 and years of propaganda in favour of enhanced interrogation techniques as part of the war on terrorism? Sandra Lehalle enters this ongoing debate by taking apart the fable of the ticking bomb scenario, the last argument of the defenders of torture. On another front, the punitive logic that prevails in the treatment of crime is widely approved by the public, as we mentioned in relation to the fate reserved for common criminals. If torture so often still serves as an investigation tool, and if detention conditions remain so disastrous, it is because two ideas remain deeply rooted in the collective unconscious. The first one holds that confession is the ultimate proof, a form of redemption for the accused and a necessary and sufficient condition to close an investigation. Why look further if a suspect has confessed? Who would confess to a crime he had not committed? The second notion is that, in the end, the guilty parties just receive what they deserve. So, it does not really matter whether they are beaten up by policemen if they refuse to confess. And who cares about presumption of innocence, or the fact that one will admit anything to stop the torture? Later, once they have been sentenced, not only should they be deprived of liberty, to say nothing of earning regaining it, they should also suffer physically. A remote echo of corporal punishments inflicted on delinquents in former times. Yet, Olivier Abel shows how Christian logic has lodged in the rejection of this penal vision of suffering as punishment, intrinsically necessary for the world order.
Torture within each one of us

A torture system does not appear out of nowhere. The mere will of a few tyrants and the terror they inspire are not enough to explain why so many countries, so many people can take part in crimes which should disgust each one of us. Fighting torture also means understanding the individual mechanisms that allow its appearance. It therefore entails asking ourselves questions on the moral imperatives which underlie our absolute rejection of torture, whether philosophical, as for criminologist Sandra Lehalle, or anchored in Christian tradition and invention, for philosopher Olivier Abel.
24
Furthermore, the persistence of phenomena such as child abuse and violence against women shows some kind of social complacency towards the most extreme forms of brutality. Indeed, the fight against such widespread practices, which are comparable to torture, is not consistent with their grave nature, despite their official prohibition. But in the final analysis, one of the main strata of this breeding ground for torture is surely the rejection of the Other and the fear of those who are different. It is not an easy thing to torture a man when you consider him as a fellow man. As we have seen, torturing someone means stripping him of his humanity. But this is merely the outcome of a dehumanisation process which precedes and is necessary for the commission of these monstrous acts. If there is a single phenomenon which is essential to torture, it is the fact that torturers consider their victims to be less human than they are. And there are many reasons to place them in the category of sub-humans against whom all is permitted, against whom no moral prohibition applies anymore. It is enough for them to have the wrong shade of skin, to worship the wrong God, to think wrong, to belong to the wrong ethnic group, to be homosexual... Surfing on the wave of old-fashioned, all-too-common racism, many governments use the fear of those who are not quite like us. They know how to turn them into ideal scapegoats, fit to be labeled as the people's enemy, someone who must be wiped, allegedly in the name of common good. Thereafter, all members of these minorities are likely to be seen as collectively responsible for the crimes attributed, rightly or wrongly, to some of them.
What hope is there?

While this report aims to contribute to our knowledge of the condition in which this World of Torture is and understanding of the complexity of the phenomenon, it also seeks to remind us that we cannot be satisfied with living in a world where so many countries resort to torture, but above all to remind us there is place for hope. Maybe not in the disappearance of torture from the surface of the earth, but at less in a significant decrease in the number of its victims. This year, the Arab Spring proved, once again, that men can stand up and overturn their oppressors. Nothing is set in stone, we know this, and at this very moment, in Syria, China or Uzbekistan, many of those who dare to say No pay their audacity with their blood or their freedom. It is up to us to let it be known, to protest massively, to welcome asylum seekers, to work for the creation and strengthening of preventive mechanisms, to demand trials In short, to do our job. It is up to us to be worthy of their courage.
A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . GEOGRAPHY OF TORTURE
27
Geography of Torture
29
AMERICAS
Chile . Cuba . Honduras . United States . Venezuela .
30
GEOGRAPHY OF TORTURE . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT
31
UNITED STATES
washington d.c. * 309 m
CUBA
havana * 11.2 m
INTRODUCTION
The States of this continent are democracies, except Cuba where the Communist Party is the only authorized party under the Constitution. Most of them have passed legislations prohibiting torture in domestic law. In certain countries, such as Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador or Venezuela, the ban on this practice is even enshrined in the Constitution. 27 of the zone's 35 countries ratified the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In June 2011, Panama became the 14th of the continent's States to ratify the Optional Protocol to this treaty. Other States have recently adopted legislation establishing a National Preventive Mechanism* (NPM) required by the latter, such as Paraguay in April 2011. In addition, 18 countries adopted the Inter-American Convention for the Prevention and Repression of Torture, with the notable exceptions of the United States and Canada. Nonetheless, institutionalized violence, torture and ill-treatment remain extremely common in the region. Numerous States are still reluctant to investigate human rights violations, past and present. During a meeting in March 2011, representatives of the UN anti-torture mechanisms and the Office of the Rapporteur on the Right of Persons Deprived of Liberty of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (CIDH) clearly established the direct correlation between, on the one hand, the trend toward repressive political policies on citizen security and, on the other, the increase in overcrowding in correctional facilities, the rise in the number of torture cases and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and punishment, and the decline of detention conditions. Some common characteristics were emphasized, namely: the excessive use of preventive detention, the resort to torture as a method of investigation in criminal cases, the excessive use of force for disciplinary purposes in places of deprivation of liberty, the persistence of patterns of impunity, corruption and the lack of transparency in the police, justice and prison management. The absence of independent national institutions that monitor detention centres and the lack of cooperation of certain States with international bodies responsible for oversight were also highlighted. The persistence of deep social and economic inequalities, often combined with weak state structures at the local level in many countries, creates a fertile ground for
HONDURAS
tegucigalpa 7.6 m
VENEZUELA
caracas * 28.8 m
CHILE
santiago * 17.1 m
Countries covered in the 2011 report Countries covered in the 2010 report Population in 2010 in million of inhabitants / Source: World Bank 2010
32
33
the growth of criminality. Gangs (maras or pandillas) or hitmen (sicarios), connected to various types of trafficking (drug, prostitution, human trafficking, kidnapping for ransom) abound in Mexico, most of Central America countries, Venezuela, Colombia, the Brazilian favelas, and even in several States of the US. In response to this situation, prevention measures, alternative punishments and solution of social problems are replaced with zero tolerance and mano dura (hard hand) policies that trivialize and legitimize the use of strong-arm methods to bring down criminals. According to a report of the Secretary of Public Security of the State of So Paolo, Brazil, the military police (MP) is the cause of 128 out of 629 violent deaths reported between January and August 2011, in So Paolo alone, i.e. one death out of five. Torture often takes place during investigations, is used to obtain confessions or to get individuals to denounce other persons and allows for a higher rate of convictions. In Mexico, numerous detainees report having signed confessions under duress before being detained under arraigo (preventive detention without charge) up to ninety days for the duration of the investigation. The consequence of these measures and mass imprisonment is the explosion of the number of prisoners in detention centres, which are often extremely dilapidated and inadequate. Torture thereby becomes a disciplinary measure to control and repress the inmate population. More than 1,000 detainees of the Colombian prison La Modelo, in Bogota, state that on 22 and 24 August 2011, they were subjected to torture and ill-treatment by the guards of Colombia's National Penitentiary and Prison Institute (INPEC). Forcibly removed from their cells and taken to the yard, they were forced to line up, nude, squat multiple times, and show their genitals. The treatment meted out in high-security prisons dehumanizes inmates to such an extent that it is also comparable to torture, as is the case in approximately 60 centres in the United States and in certain Chilean correctional settings. Torture is regularly used to humiliate and coerce vulnerable, marginalized and stigmatized social groups (women, gays, bisexual and transgender persons, indigenous peoples, immigrants, street youth). The decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACoHR) in February 2011 in the case of Jess Tranquilino Vlez Loor, in this sense, represents an important development in the defence of immigrants rights: the State of Panama was ordered to provide justice and pay compensation to an Ecuadorian citizen who, having entered the country through irregular means, was subjected to more than ten months of torture and mistreatment. Social and political protest movements often face brutal repression from law enforcement forces, accompanied by judicial harassment and iniquitous legal measures. Many Latin American States have adopted specific anti-terrorist legislations that are contrary to constitutional guarantees with respect to rights and liberties (Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Salvador, Peru, Paraguay, etc). Vaguely defined
offences open the door for interpretations that criminalize contests against existing governments: unionists, peasant farmers, students and social leaders are arrested under the guise of the fight against terrorism and are exposed to risks of torture, ill-treatment and enforced disappearances*. For example, Honduras civil society denounces the anti-terrorist law adopted in November 2010, which assimilates NGOs to criminal structures, requiring them to signal any donation or material support over 2,000 dollars. In Argentina, the law against terrorism allows for the repression of citizens or organizations that criticize the authorities or seek to exert pressure on the government. Impunity contributes to the persistence of the torture phenomenon. It is not only the result of endemic corruption, but also of the failures of the systems responsible for the administration of justice. The referral of numerous complaints before military jurisdictions that exclude or minimize crimes of torture, which is the case particularly in Colombia and Mexico, creates a significant obstacle to judging those responsible for attacks on human rights. In Salvador and Brazil, amnesty laws that remain in force impede the prosecution of perpetrators of torture and enforced disappearances. In certain countries, actions taken by civil society have, nonetheless, allowed undeniable headway to be made in the fight against impunity for perpetrators of past crimes (Argentina, Chile and Peru). In June 2011, Guatemala reached an historic milestone: for the first time, an ex-general, Hctor Mario Lpez Fuentes, responsible for 12 massacres having caused the deaths of 317 Mayans during the internal armed conflict, was indicted for genocide and crimes against humanity, including torture and enforced disappearances.
In Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico and Peru, the countries examined in the 2010 ACAT-France report, the situation has not improved. Exactions have not decreased. As yet, no legislative measure has truly allowed for any progress in the prevention and punishment of acts of torture. The proportion of convicted instigators and perpetrators remains minimal.
34
35
CHILE
PRACTICE OF TORTURE
According to the Chilean Ethical Commission Against Torture (Comisin tica Contra la Tortura, or CECT), torture is still being used against activists during the repression of social protests, against certain indigenous people such as the Mapuche and Rapa Nui, against prisoners, and against law enforcement forces new recruits during their training.2
Victims
Most reported cases of mistreatment and torture involve members of the Mapuche communities of the regions of Araucana and Biobo (in the centre of the country). Repressed when they seek to defend their territory and cultural heritage, they are also subjected to violence during incursions by law enforcement officers into their villages. For example, on 18 September 2010, Cristin Garca Quintul, the president of a Mapuche organization, was attacked by Carabineros (uniformed police) during a demonstration. He was beaten once more, insulted and threatened in their truck, before ending up in a prison cell without having been informed of his rights and the reasons for his detention.3 Between 2001 and 2010, 57 Mapuche leaders were found guilty of violation of the Counter-Terrorism Act 18.31444 and were therefore accused. This law, passed in 1984 under the regime of Augusto Pinochet, allows for the accused to be tried before a military court, the use of so-called faceless, i.e. anonymous witnesses, and very long periods of pre-trial detention, during which abuse is common. In October 2010, following a three-month hunger strike staged by 34 political Mapuche prisoners, the authorities agreed to cease to apply this law to them. Nonetheless, it remains in force, particularly in cases of land occupations and arson of large private properties, which are methods sometimes used by indigenous activists to be heard. Juveniles are not exempt from institutional violence. Four adolescents have testified to being victims of numerous forms of harassment, such as shadowing, illegal interrogation, attempted bribery to extract information, and blood sampling without the presence of their legal guardians or lawyers.5 Over the last ten years, approximately fifty Mapuche children, aged 9 months to 17 years, were subjected to various types of assaults: teargas asphyxiation, being chased even in their school, intimidation using a firearm, punches and kicks, injuries from small caliber bullets, torture, and threats of death by drowning.6 Rodrigo Huenchupn, Jos irripil Prez, Cristin Cayupn Morales, Luis Humberto Marileo Cariqueo and Juan Patricio Queipul Milanao, all juveniles who were arrested in the application of the anti-terrorist law
BACKGROUND
At the head of the Chilean Republic since 11 March 2010, entrepreneur Sebastin Piera is the first right-wing president to be democratically elected since 1958 and the departure of the general Augusto Pinochet in 1990, after seventeen years of dictatorship. Civil society organizations have denounced his statements on alleged ties between leaders of the indigenous Mapuche community and members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia guerilla (FARC), his appointments to high-level posts of former pinochetistas or of persons suspected of human rights violations, and his hesitation to include or not perpetrators of crimes against humanity among the beneficiaries of a sentences remission project aimed at reducing prison congestions. Criticism has increased since May 2011, with a social crisis and mobilization in favor of a better wealth distribution that are unprecedented in the last two decades. The movement, launched by students and progressively joined by other groups of the population (workers, gay activists, ecologists) was met with a particularly violent repression from law enforcement forces. In late August 2011, a teenager was shot to death near a demonstration in Santiago, Chile.1 The fight against drug trafficking and terrorism, a term often used to describe any form of opposition or protest, serves to justify brutal methods of intervention by the military and police, the increase in the length of prison sentences, the treatment of juveniles as adults, the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility, and detention solely on the basis of an accusation of public order disturbance.
36
37
between October 2008 and April 2011, have declared that they endured torture. Since 8 June 2011, young people under 18 can no longer be pursued under this legislation. In addition to overpopulation (56,000 inmates compared to an official holding capacity of 34,000 people in September 2010)7, detainees are exposed to the use of unjustified punishments in enforcing the disciplinary regime in prison establishments.8 In June 2010, a video made using a mobile phone showed 13 prisoners in the Villarrica prison, naked, forced to engage in physical exercises under blows from the guards, and then hosed down with water to wash away the marks.9 Finally, Chilean human rights organizations report excesses during the training given to security forces personnel. Some recruits are subjected to mistreatments, even torture, under the guise of punishment or initiation test. On 7 December 2010, a cadet in the Chilean Air Force (FACH) suffered serious after-effects from his baptism that left him unfit for the position of pilot.10 On 2 February 2011, two aspiring Carabineros died as a result of their coaching.11
Methods and Objectives

The most frequently reported techniques are insults, threats of execution, hits, burns, electric shocks, simulated drowning, and mid-air suspension. On 5 October 2009, in a town in Araucana, members of the police special-operations group a Carabinero unit took a 14-year-old teenager, F.P.M., into a helicopter with the doors open and threatened to throw him overboard while holding his upper body over the edge to extract names related to a land occupation.16 In most cases, torture seeks self-incrimination or information against third parties. This practice of false confessions is allegedly approved by public defence lawyers and prosecutors who, according to certain witnesses, sometimes personally attend sessions of torture to record the statements.17 In March 2011, four Mapuche autonomy defenders of El Caete (Biobo) were convicted of damage to private property and attack of a federal prosecutor, partly as a result of confessions extracted under torture from Jonathan Huillical, one of the accused, and covered in the the investigation file despite his retraction.18 In general, suspects are offered favorable treatment in exchange for judicial collaboration,19 particularly in the form of testimony or the provision of anonymous information. ngel Reyes Cayupan, a 20-year-old Mapuche, was abused and tortured in January 2009 by the PDI to get him to admit to participating in the arson of a hangar. He was offered a reduced sentence, a change of identity, a house and a job in another region in exchange for incriminating his cousin and other members of his community.20 Moreover, civil society organizations denounce the detention conditions in highsecurity prisons, constitutive of physical and psychological torture*. Anarchist activists detained in a facility of this kind in August 2010 in relation to the Caso Bombas (the bombing affair) a series of 23 explosive attacks carried out in Santiago, during the preceding months were long kept in solitary confinement* for twenty-two hours a day in the cold and damp and not allowed to see their families.21 In other cases, torture is a means for security agents to discharge their violence onto vulnerable people deemed undesirable. On 15 December 2010, videos taken by a Carabinero on his cell phone and broadcast on television documented the abuses that he and five of his colleagues had inflicted on several occasions since 2009 on Juan Alejandro Berros Urra, a homeless man, in their van.22
Torturers and Torture Sites

Perpetrators of abuses most commonly denounced are the Carabineros, who have military training and have been granted very broad authority. According to the CECT,12 they are well-versed in fanaticism and obedience, and accustomed, since the dictatorship, to see repression as an inherent right of their duty. Several of their interventions have ended in deaths in recent years. Plainclothes officers from the Investigations Police (Polica de Investigaciones, or PDI) and gendarmes in charge of surveillance in prison establishments are also often guilty of violations.13 Members of certain branches of the army are also cited as torturers. For example, in Hualpn (Biobo), Daniel Riquelme Ruiz, 45, was tortured to death by five naval officers on 10 March 2010. He had been caught near his home smoking a cigarette and talking with his neighbor despite the nighttime curfew declared by the authorities after the 27 February earthquake.14 Abuse and torture mainly take place in the police stations and detention centres. They often begin from the time of transportation in security forces vehicles. On 26 June 2010, Francisco Coronado Crdenas, 19, died in the van of the Carabineros who had arrested him earlier for troubles and intoxication during a party in Cabrero, Biobo.15
38
39
LAW AND LEGAL PRACTICE Legal Condemnation of Torture

Chile is party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its two Optional Protocols, as well as to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances*. The State also ratified the Inter-American Convention against Torture, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its Optional Protocol in 2009. Chilean law prohibits acts constituting torture or abuse, but does not include a specific definition of the crime of torture as set out in the UN Convention. Thus, Article 150A of the Criminal Code on offences committed by civil servants in the exercise of their duties, which only refers to physical or psychological suffering or constraints, contains no provision on the attempt to torture and designates persons deprived of liberty as the only possible victims. According to Articles 21 and 94, there are a five-year statute of limitations for torture crimes in cases of intimidation and punishment, and a ten-year one in cases of extraction of confessions or information and of violence resulting in death.23 In addition, Article 130 partially contemplates prescriptions, i.e. calls for a reduced sentence after half of the prescription term has elapsed.24 The Constitution drafted under the military regime in 1980, which remains in effect, makes no mention of torture, although it guarantees the right to life and physical and psychological integrity and explicitly prohibits any illegitimate constraint in Article 191.
torture and enforced disappearances.26 It has, however, yet to manage to set up an effective national torture prevention mechanism, which would include an investigative process and the participation of civil society. Numerous flaws remain. The organizational system of the Public Prosecutor's ffice condones the use of torture. Prosecutors favorable to this practice can harass lawyers who are opposed to it in order to speed up the process. With respect to civil proceedings, which are archaic and ineffective, they are characterized by an average process term of five years or more.27 On 30 December 2010, the authorities finally adopted a reform to the military justice system which restricts the jurisdiction of military courts, explicitly bans the prosecution of civilians and juveniles, and includes transitional measures and procedures for the transfer of more than 4,600 cases to the regular criminal justice system. Nonetheless, despite all the recommendations made by international organizations and the very principles of independence and impartiality, military courts still have a privilege of jurisdiction for human rights related crimes committed by the armed forces which include uniformed police members (Article 330 of the Military Justice Code).28 Although 2,634 complaints for unnecessary violence and 116 complaints for illegal detention were filed from 2006 to February 2010, only 29 Carabineros were convicted. They all benefited from the partial prescription.29 According to the CECT, Carabineros regularly succeed in avoiding sanctions by turning accusations of torture back against the plaintiffs and claiming to be victims of aggression themselves. On 26 July 2011, Recadero Galvez, head of the Student Federation of Concepcin, was arrested, violently beaten until he lost consciousness, held in prison for several days, and subsequently accused of attempted homicide with the use of a Molotov cocktail against on-duty Carabineros. Videos released several days later showed this to be a false accusation and a judicial fraud.30 The impunity granted for past crimes reduces the possibility of advancing toward a truly democratic State that guarantees access to justice.31 Law No. 2191, passed by the junta on 10 March 1978, granting amnesty for all human rights violations committed between 11 September 1973 and that date, has yet to be repealed, thus giving the courts complete discretion on whether to prosecute such cases or not. This is why complaints were systematically dismissed during the seventeen-year dictatorship. In 2001, the Supreme Court took the initiative to circumvent this law in part, as well as the prescription rule in cases of enforced disappearances. Investigations on human rights violations between 1973 and 1990, carried out by special judges
Punishment of Perpetrators of Torture

Since 2008, the Ministry of the Interior's Forensic Medical Service trains its personnel in the application of the guidelines set out in the Istanbul Protocol* handbook, which is intended for conducting effective investigations into allegations of torture, thereby making it possible to bring perpetrators to justice and guarantee compensation for the victims.25 Furthermore, the National Human Rights Institute (Instituto Nacional de Derechos Humanos, or INDH), created in December 2009 by the government of Michelle Bachelet after the ratification of the UN Optional Protocol, issues an annual report that includes recommendations, works towards the harmonization of national laws with signed international treaties, trains security forces in human rights, and engages in legal prosecutions, particularly in cases of crimes against humanity,
40
41
appointed by this institution, have resulted in the first trials in 2004. However, as for more recent cases, guilty parties benefited from the partial prescription, applied at the Supreme Court's discretion, and as of August 2010, two thirds of those convicted had yet to receive prison sentences.32 A reparations law, promulgated in 2004, established a National Commission on Political prisoners and torture, the Valech Commission, tasked with identifying victims of torture and political detention between 1973 and 1990, and compensating them (with a monthly pension of approximately 240 dollars, and easier access to healthcare and education).33 In August 2011, it had identified 38,254 cases of torture and political detention, and 3,225 cases of enforced disappearance or extrajudicial execution.34 For many historians and NGOs, actual figures are closer to between 200,000 and 300,000 persons arrested and tortured. Moreover, this system allows for the possibility of obtaining some compensation, but not for the conviction of those responsible. Article 15 of the law prohibits courts from accessing torture testimonies gathered by said Commission for a period of fifty years.35
[13] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, op. cit., p. 3. [14] Organisation Mondiale Contre la Torture (OMCT) [World Organisation Against Torture], Chile: Muerte del Sr Daniel Riquelme Ruiz, Alegaciones de malos tratos, temor de impunidad [Chile: Death of Mr. Daniel Riquelme Ruz, Allegations of ill-treatment, Fear of impunity], 23 March 2010, http://www.omct.org/es/urgent-campaigns/urgent-interventions/chile/2010/03/d20623/. [15] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, op. cit., p. 1. [16] CECT, La tortura y Chile en sus 200 aos, p. 50, 51, 64 and 65, http://www.cintras.org/textos/informecet2010.pdf. [17] Ibidem, p. 51 and 52. [18] CECT, No a la tortura!, p. 32, 33, 171 and 172. [19] CECT, La tortura y Chile en sus 200 aos, p. 50 and 51. [20] Ibid., p. 51. [21] CECT, No a la tortura!, p. 9, 10, 169 and 170. [22] Ibid., p. 164. [23] Informe de la Sociedad Civil de Chile al Comit Contra la Tortura de Naciones Unidas con motivo del Quinto Informe Peridico del Estado de Chile relativo a la aplicacin de la Convencin contra la Tortura y Otros Tratos o Penas Crueles, Inhumanos o degradantes [Report of Chile's Civil Society to the United Nations Committee Against Torture on the Occasion of the Fifth Periodic Report of the Sate of Chile on the Application of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment], May 2009, 50 pages, p. 11, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/ngos/ SCC_Chile42.pdf. [24] FERNNDEZ NEIRA, Karinna and SFERRAZZA TAIBI, Pietro. La aplicacin de la prescripcin gradual en casos de violaciones de derechos humanos [Application of gradual prescription in cases of human rights violations], Estudios constitucionales, No. 1, 2009, http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0718-52002009000100010&script=sci_arttext. [25] United Nations, Committee Against Torture, op. cit., p. 2. [26] Instituto Nacional de Derechos Humanos (INDH) [National Human Rights Institute], Informe Anual 2010 [2010 Annual Report], December 2010, 181 pages, p. 70 and 71, http://www.indh.cl/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Informe_Final_Corregido1.pdf.
[1] Amnesty International, Chile: Impartial investigation for student protester death, 1 September 2011, http://www.amnesty.org/en/ news-and-updates/chile-impartial-investigation-student-protester-death-2011-09-01. [2] Comisin tica Contra la Tortura (CECT) [Ethical Commission Against Torture], Colusin de gobierno y jueces para avalar tortura en Chile [Collusion between the government and judges to endorse torture], ElClarn.cl, 16 March 2011, http://www. elclarin.cl/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=698:colusion-de-gobierno-y-jueces-paraavalar-tortura-enchile-denuncio-comision-etica-contra-la-tortura-&catid=2:cronica&Itemid=3. [3] United Nations, Human Rights Council, 17th session, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, Addendum, A/HRC/17/27/Add.1, 27 May 2011, 337 pages, p. 55 and 56, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27.Add.1_EFSonly.pdf. [4] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2010 Human Rights Report: Chile, 8 April 2011, 25 pages, p. 19, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160158.pdf. [5] Fundacin ANIDE [ANIDE Foundation], Red de ONGs de Infancia y Juventud de Chile [Network of Chilean Children's and Youth NGOs] and Red Latinoamericana y Caribea por la Defensa de los Derechos de los Nios, Nias y Adolescentes [Latin American and Caribbean Network for the Defense of Children and Teenagers], Informe Sobre Violencia Institucional Contra la Niez Mapuche en Chile, Resumen Ejecutivo [Report on Institutional Violence against Mapuche Children in Chile, Executive Summary], 25 March 2011, 47 pages, p. 22. [6] CECT, No a la tortura! A nadie en ningn lugar y en nombre de nada, Informe de Derechos Humanos 2011 [No to Torture Against Anyone, Anywhere, For Any Cause, 2011 Human Rights Report], June 2011, 221 pages, p. 77, http://notascect.files. wordpress.com/2011/06/2011-final-informecect_2011-quimantc3ba.pdf; ACAT-France, Chili : Mineur mapuche violemment arrt et risque de procs inique [Chile: Mapuche juvenile violently arrested and risk of unfair trial], Urgent Appeal, 13 June 2011, http://www.acatfrance.fr/medias/appel_urgent/doc/AU_24_Chili_-_Soudan.pdf. [7] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, op. cit., p. 4. [8] United Nations, Committee Against Torture, 42nd session, Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture: Chile, CAT/C/CHL/CO/5, 23 June 2009, 9 pages, p. 6. [9] CECT, La tortura y Chile en sus 200 aos, Informe de Derechos Humanos 2010 [Torture and Chile throughout its 200 years, 2010 Human Rights Report], June 2010, 70 pages, p. 5, http://www.cintras.org/textos/informecet2010.pdf. [10] CECT, No a la tortura!, p. 164. http://notascect.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/2011-final-informecect_2011-quimantc3ba.pdf. [11] Dos jvenes aspirantes a oficial de Carabineros mueren en instruccin [Two Carabinero officer cadets die in training], RedMaule.com, 2 February 2011, http://www.redmaule.com/dos-jovenes-aspirantes-a-oficial-de-carabineros-mueren-eninstruccion. [12] CECT, op. cit., p. 170.
[27] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, op. cit., p. 7. [28] Ibid., p. 20. [29] INDH, op. cit., p. 108. [30] Acusan montaje en detencin de estudiante por lanzar molotov [Judicial fraud alleged in case of student held for throwing Molotov cocktail], TerraTV.Terra.cl, 26 July 2011, 52 s, http://terratv.terra.cl/videos/Noticias/Nacional/4568-320145/Acusanmontaje-en-detencion-de-estudiante-por-lanzar-molotov.htm. [31] La dictature du gnral Pinochet devant la justice Paris [General Pinochet's Dictatorship Face Justice in Paris], Le Monde diplomatique, 8 December 2010, http://www.mondediplomatique.fr/carnet/2010-12-08-Pinochet. [32] Human Rights Watch (HRW), World Report 2011: Chile, Events of 2010, January 2011, http://www.hrw.org/en/worldreport-2011/chile and World Report 2010: Chile, Events of 2009, January 2010, http://www.hrw.org/en/node/87512. [33] Comisin Valech establece en ms de 40 mil las vctimas de la dictadura [Valech Commission estimates dictatorship's victims number over 40 thousand], ElClarn.cl, 19 August 2011, http://www.elclarin.cl/web/index.php?option=com_content&view =article&id=2271&Itemid=11. [34] Cmision Valech [Valech Commission], Informe de la Comisin Presidencial Asesora para la Calificacin de Detenidos, Desaparecidos, Ejecutados Polticos y Vctimas de Prisin Poltica y Tortura [Report of the National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture], 17 August 2011, 55 pages, p. 1, 6, 10, 23 and 47, http://www.comisionvalech.gov.cl/InformeComision/ Informe2011.pdf. [35] Republic of Chile, Ley num. 19.992 Establece pensin de reparacin y otorga otros beneficios a favor de las personas que indica [Law No. 19.992 establishing compensation pension and granting other benefits to those persons indicated therein], 14 December 2007, http://www.unexpp.cl/home/?p=927.
42
43
CUBA
to commit crimes can also be sent to prison. This propensity is interpreted as any behavior contrary to norms of socialist morals. The regime denies any human rights violation and quotes the disastrous effects of the commercial and economic embargo, imposed by the United States since 1962, on the livelihoods of Cubans to justify possible violations.4 However, it does impede visits from organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross or from UN experts.
PRACTICE OF TORTURE
Despite the statements of the Castro brothers to the effect that torture does not exist in their country,5 ill-treatment and acts of torture are part of the repressive methods systematically used by the State.6 Due to the lack of access to detention centres and to numerous obstacles in the way of the work of human rights associations, it is extremely difficult to determine the number of victims. Between the months of January and August 2011, the Cuban Commission of Human Rights and National Reconciliation (Comisin Cubana de Derechos Humanos y Reconciliacin Nacional, or CCDHRN) a structure prohibited but tolerated by the government reported 2,224 politically motivated arrests,7 often accompanied by police violence.
BACKGROUND
Out of power since July 2006 due to illness, Fidel Castro has progressively delegated all his functions to his brother, Rul. After the Lder Mximo (supreme leader) stepped down in February 2008, Rul Castro, already the commander-inchief of the armed forces since 1959, was elected president of the State Council, the highest executive body, and of the Council of Ministers. During the 6th Congress of the Cuban Communist Party (Partido Comunista de Cuba, or PCC) the only authorized party under the Constitution1 held in April 2011, Fidel Castro resigned, once again in favor of his brother, from his last position, that of First Secretary of the Party, which he had held since its creation in 1958. The regime new Number One has given a few signs of opening up since taking office. On economic issues, he has adopted limited liberal reforms, authorizing the sale of real property and automobiles and opening the possibility of being an independent worker in the services sector. Politically, in 2008, the authorities signed, but did not ratify, the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Since July 2010, they have also released 52 political opponents still imprisoned out of the 75 arrested during the March 2003 repression campaign known as Black Spring; however, their convictions were not reversed, and most were forced into exile. This side-lining of dissidents shows that Rul Castro is continuing the political repression carried out by his brother and seems to exclude the slightest evolution towards democracy. Thanks to such vague offences as acts against the independence and integrity of the State, enemy propaganda, sabotage or contempt provided for in the Penal Code,2 the government can question and detain citizens who express or otherwise show their disagreement with it. Under Article 72 of this text,3 a person who has not breached the law but is considered dangerous due to his propensity
Victims
Opponents and political prisoners, human rights defenders and independent journalists are particularly at risk of intimidation and brutality by law enforcement officers. For example, Darsi Ferrer Ramrez, a doctor and freedom of expression activist, was beaten when arrested in July 2009; he was released, then questioned once more and placed in detention for completely fabricated reasons.8 The Ladies in White (Damas de Blanco) a group of wives and relatives of dissidents apprehended in 2003 and of other political prisoners who hold a silent march for their liberation every Sunday were subjected to harassment and physical aggression in July and August 2011 in the province of Santiago. On 21 August, for example, 11 of them were pushed and had their hair pulled by police in Palma Soriano, before being taken away by force in buses.9 Individuals arrested due to their opposition to the government or their commitment to human rights promotion are subjected to detention conditions that constitute ill-treatment, if not outright torture. Imprisoned most often in maximumsecurity prisons alongside dangerous criminals or persons suffering from mental problems, they are subjected to psychological and physical violence from the guards
44
45
and criminal inmates. The latter are encouraged to participate by prison authorities and by the political police, in exchange for privileges. Moreover, political prisoners do not have the same rights as the rest of the prison population (access to the library and classes, parole measures, phone calls, etc.). On 24 February 2010, dissident Orlando Zapata Tamayo, 42, died after an eighty-five-day hunger strike to protest his treatment while in detention. Sentenced to three years in prison in 2003, he was sent to a high-security establishment, Kilo 8, in the province of Camagey, where he was abused.10 He was, for example, dragged along the ground by guards for having requested medical assistance,11 and had additional prison terms imposed for each act of insubordination. Throughout his hunger strike, he contracted pneumonia and an oral infection and was deprived of water for eighteen days.12 Subjected to acts of intimidation (questioning and short-term arbitrary detention), independent media professionals also endure abuses. In April 2011, in Havana, journalist Miguel Iturria Savn was picked up by an unmarked car and was punched when he asked plainclothes agents to produce an arrest warrant.13 Inmates convicted for ordinary offences are also the target of mistreatment and torture in prison establishments.14 HIV-positive individuals, sent to special prisons for an offence known as dangerous pre-criminal condition,15 are especially vulnerable to abuse.16 To a lesser extent, Cubans belonging to an unrecognized Church, and involved for human rights, represent other categories of population exposed to risk.
Members of local PCC cells and pro-government organizations, in particular the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (Comits de Defensa de la Revolucin, or CDR), particularly tasked with spying on citizens and infiltrating counterrevolutionary structures, also inflict mistreatment on dissidents. On 6 April 2011, the head of a CDR stabbed a human rights activist.18 Abuse sometimes takes place outside, during the so-called acts of repudiation. So, many supporters of the regime act, either during a public protest to provoke and brutalize participants or in front of dissidents or human rights activists homes, to insult them, throw stones or other objects at their homes, and sometimes physically attack them. Although called voluntary by the authorities, these protests generally arise at the urging and with the participation of security forces.19 Abuses also occur during interrogations in police stations and State security detention centres, or even during transport in law enforcement vehicles. Opposition member ngel Moya Acosa among the last from the Black Spring to be released because he refused to be deported to Spain was violently pushed into a car, handcuffed, and tortured by police officers in May 2011.20 The main torture centres are places of detention, of which there are 250 according to the Council of Human Rights Rapporteurs in Cuba (Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos de Cuba, or CRDHC).21 The approximately 100,000 inmates live there in deplorable conditions, work without pay, lack food, hygiene, drinking water and light, and have no access to basic medical care.22 On 12 June 2010, dissident Ariel Sigler Amaya was granted an exceptional release for health reasons. The numerous illnesses contracted throughout the seven years imprisonment and severe malnutrition to which he was subjected rendered him paraplegic.23 Between January and December 2009, the CRDHC reported 64 deaths, of which at least 19 were suicides, in 26 prison establishments alone. Abuse and torture, solitary confinements*, hunger, poor medical care and the general neglected state of prisons are to blame.24

The main perpetrators of torture belong to the Ministry of the Interior: agents of the National Revolutionary Police Force (Polica Nacional Revolucionaria, or PNR) and of the State Security Department (Departamento de Seguridad del Estado, or DSE) the political police , prison staff employees, and members of the Rapid Response Brigades (Brigadas de Respuesta Rpida, or BRR). These former reservist units became paramilitary groups consisting of former criminals, mercenaries, and unstable individuals, who carry out violent beatings. On 8 April 2011, agents of the BRR and DSE arrested and beat opponent Damaris Moya Portiers, as well as three other members of the Central Opposition Coalition.17

Aside from beatings with sticks, bayonets, knives, and rifle butts, commonly used forms of physical torture, particularly on prisoners of conscience, include exposure to extreme temperatures, such as being moved from a hot room to a cold one; placement in painful or stressful positions, particularly the prolonged immobilization on a small chair or sillita; the method known as Russian symphony sinfona rusa, which consists in banging a frying pan against the wall next to
46
47
the victim to damage his eardrums; mock executions by firearm or drowning; crucifixion; the technique known as Shakira, in reference to the undulating hips of the Colombian singer, where the inmate's hands are pinned to his hips through handcuffs attached to a chain that the jailer can pull to the point of cutting off breathing; and the method known as balancn (the seesaw), in which the victim is placed on the stomach with hands and feet bound together behind the back for hours.25 Psychological torture* consists of threats against the victim and his loved ones; sensory deprivation; exposure to light and noise night and day to lose all sense of time; solitary confinement for twenty-one-days, for weeks, sometimes for years, in padded cells infested with insects and rodents; transfers to prisons far from the place of residence; denying family visits or religious assistance.26 Former prisoner of conscience Miguel Galbn, a Catholic, was denied access to a priest for the first nine months of his detention.27 Torture seeks, in part, to extract confessions from the increasing number of citizens arbitrarily seized for political reasons or on the basis of their dangerous pre-criminal condition28, but presumed innocent under the Code of Criminal Procedure.29 However, in Cuba, it is used mostly to intimidate and silence dissidents, then to punish them once they are in prison. The idea is to destroy any spirit of rebellion in the victims, hurt them, and above all, reeducate them so that they not only stop opposing the regime but actually submit to it, in order to escape the corporal punishment and detention conditions imposed on them.30
In terms of domestic law, Article 26 of the Constitution provides that: Any person having suffered an injustice or prejudice unduly caused by civil servants or agents of the state in the performance of their duties has the right to claim and obtain corresponding reparation or compensation in the manner established by the law. The text also guarantees the inviolability of one's person, states that the detainee's or prisoner's physical integrity is inviolable (Art. 58), excludes the admissibility of a confession obtained under duress and sets sanctions for its use (Art. 59). With respect to the Criminal Code, it prohibits practices constituting abuse or torture, such as serious bodily injuries, endangering life, or resulting in the person becoming handicapped, deformed or suffering any other physical or psychological after-effect (Art. 272) and the use of corporal punishment on detainees or any measure resulting in their humiliation or harming their dignity (Art. 30). However, Cuban law includes no definition or specific criminalization of the offence of torture, a loophole in line with the government's persistent denial that the phenomenon of torture even exists.

In theory, the Criminal Code authorizes citizens to file complaints with or petition the authorities and prohibits the abuse of power by civil servants (Art. 133). In practice, there is no independent institution in charge of investigating human rights violations. Moreover, the judicial system is neither independent nor impartial. Under the Constitution, courts are placed under the tutelage of the State Council and the National Assembly, which has the power to choose and remove the Minister of Justice, the members of the Supreme Court (president, vice-presidents and other judges), the Attorney General and the Assistant Attorneys General. By law, lawyers must be employed by bufetes colectivos, collective law firms controlled by the Minister of Justice. Those who formed an independent group (Corriente Agramontista) are targets of arrest and detention.33 Furthermore, civilians who are suspected of counterrevolutionary acts or accused by agents of the police or other law enforcement institutions may be transferred to military jurisdictions.34 No investigation was launched in 2010 regarding allegations of abuse or torture involving members of the national police, and no supporter of the regime involved in violence committed during acts of repudiation has been arrested.35 The repression of perpetrators of torture, which seems impossible to implement at the national level, has nonetheless been attempted internationally. In 1999, two complaints for crimes against humanity filed in France against Fidel Castro, were

Cuba has been a State party to the United Nations Convention against Torture since 1995, but it does not recognize the jurisdiction of the Committee Against Torture* (CAT) to investigate communications* alleging the non-compliance with its commitments, presented either by another State party (Article 21) or by or on behalf of individuals falling within its jurisdiction (Article 22).31 The authorities have also declared that any cooperation with the Committee in cases of serious allegations of torture carried out within their territory was strictly subject to the principle of sovereignty and to the prior consent of the State parties.32 Moreover, the country has not ratified the Optional Protocol to this Convention, and has yet to ratify the two Covenants signed in 2008.
48
49
declared inadmissible by the Public Prosecutor's Office.36 In 2001, under the law for universal jurisdiction* then in effect in Belgium, several Cuban refugees living in the United States filed a collective complaint with the Belgian courts against the Lder Mximo and three generals, including Rul Castro, who were accused of crimes against humanity for illegal detention, murder, persecution and torture. After the repeal of this text, however, the Appeals Court declared the Belgian courts incompetent to hear the case in December 2003.37
[16] Movimiento de Derechos Humanos 10 Diciembre [December 10th Human Rights Movement], Enfermos de Vih/SIDA son torturados en centro de recluson de Camagey [VIH/AIDS patients tortured in Camagey Detention Centre], 21 April 2011, http://derechoshumanos10dediciembre.blogspot.com/2011/04/enfermos-de-vihsida-son-torturados-en.html; Centro de Informacin Hablemos Press (CIHPRESS) [Let's Talk Information Centre Press], Reo enfermo de SIDA reclama asistencia mdica [Inmate with AIDS demands medical assistance], 1 February 2011, http://www.cihpress.com/2011/02/reo-enfermo-de-sidareclama-asistencia.html. [17] CIHPRESS, Informe Mensual de Violaciones de los Derechos Humanos - Abril 2011 [Monthly Report on Human-Rights Violations April 2011], 3 May 2011, http://www.cihpress.com/2011/05/informe-mensual-de-violaciones-de-los.html. [18] DHCuba, Cuba Derechos Humanos, Radio oficial: Los machetazos contra Carrera Moreno fueron espontneos [fficial Radio: Machete attack against Carrera Moreno was 'spontaneous], 18 August 2011, http://dhcuba.impela.net/2011/08/radio-oficial-losmachetazos-contra-carrera-moreno-fueron-espontaneos/. [19] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2010 Human Rights Report: Cuba, 8 April 2011, 30 pages, p. 2 and 3, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160160.pdf. [20] ngel Moya denuncia torturas durante una detencin en La Habana [ngel Moya reports torture during detention], Diaro de Cuba, 13 Mayo 2011, http://www.ddcuba.com/derechos-humanos/4729-angel-moya-denuncia-torturas-durante-una-detencionen-la-habana. [21] CRDHC, op. cit., p. 5. [22] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, op. cit., p. 3-6; Derechos Humanos Cubanos, Corrupcin y torturas en crceles cubanas [Corruption and torture in Cuban jails], 12 January 2010, http://www.derechoshumanoscuba.com/2010/02/corrupcion-ytorturas-en-carceles.html. [23] United Nations, Human Rights Council, Written statement submitted by the Centrist Democratic International (CDI), a non-governmental organization in special consultative status, A/HRC/13/NGO/86, 24 February 2010, 4 pages, p. 3, http://www.ecoi.net/file_upload/470_1276864400_g1011303.pdf. [24] CRDHC, op. cit., p. 5. [25] Ibid., p. 10; Comisin Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) [Inter-American Commission on Human Rights], Informe Anual 2009 Captulo IV Cuba, 235 [2009 Annual Report, Ch. IV Cuba, 235), http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2009sp/ cap.4Cuba.09.sp.htm; Prefer morir antes que me humillaran [I preferred death over humiliation], Ddcuba.com, 4 April 2011, http://www.ddcuba.com/derechos-humanos/3952-preferi-morir-antes-que-me-humillaran. [26] Derechos Humanos Cubanos, op. cit. [27] Entretien avec Miguel Galbn, ancien prisonnier de conscience cubain [Interview with Miguel Galbn, Cuban former prisoner of conscience], Zenit.org, 18 February 2011, http://www.zenit.org/article-27019?l=french. [28] Human Rights Watch (HRW), World Report 2011: Cuba, Events of 2010, http://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2011/cuba. [29] Republic of Cuba, Ley de Procedimiento Penal de 1977 (con reformas hasta de 1994) [Law on Criminal Procedures of 1979, with Amendments up to 1994], Art. 1, http://www.gacetaoficial.cu/html/procedimientopenal.html. [30] BURGOS, Elizabeth. Condamner et punir : le systme pnitencier cubain [Condemn and Punish: the Cuban penitentiary system], Nouveau monde Mondes nouveaux, 16 January 2009, 63, http://nuevomundo.revues.org/49612. [31] United Nations, Human Rights Council, Compilation Prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Cuba, A/HRC/WG.6/4/CUB/2, 18 December 2008, 17 pages, p. 2,http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session4/CU/A_HRC_ WG6_4_CUB_2_E.pdf. [32] United Nations, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 20 September 2011, 32 pages, p. 4, http:// http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Volume%20I/Chapter%20IV/IV-9.en.pdf. [33] CIHPRESS, Informe Mensual de Violaciones de los Derechos Humanos - Mayo 2011 [Monthly Report on Human-Rights Violations May 2011], 1 June 2011, http://www.cihpress.com/2011/06/informe-mensual-de-violaciones-de-los.html. [34] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, op. cit., p. 10. [35] Ibid., p. 2 and 8. [36] CNN, Prosecutor's office throws out complaints against Castro, 10 February 2010, http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/fidel/ complaint.htm. [37] The Hague Justice Portal, Castro et al., http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/eCache/DEF/7/273.TD1GUg.html.
[1] Republic of Cuba, Constitucin Poltica de 1976 (con reformas hasta 2002) [Political Constitution of 1976, with Amendments to 2002], Art. 5, http://www.gacetaoficial.cu/html/constitucion_de_la_republica.html. [2] Republic of Cuba, Cdigo Penal de 1979 (con reformas hasta 1999) [Criminal Code of 1979, with Amendments to 2009], Art. 91, 103, 104 and 144, http://www.gacetaoficial.cu/html/codigo_penal.html. [3] Ibidem, Art. 72. [4] Amnesty International, Cuba: Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review: Fourth session of the UPR Working Group of the Human Rights Council, February 2009, 8 September 2008, 9 pages, p. 7, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ AMR25/002/2008/en/40acb931-0148-486d-b2c0-6d67976ab049/amr250022008en.pdf. [5] Cuba-Fidel Castro condena las torturas en las crceles estadounidenses [Fidel Castro condemns torture in US prisons], Europapress.es, 18 November 2010, http://www.europapress.es/latam/politica/noticia-cuba-fidel-castro-condena-torturascarceles-estadounidenses-20101118041823.html; El mandatario Ral Castro asegura que en Cuba no existen torturados [President Ral Castro states that in Cuba, there are no tortured individuals], Elmundo.es, 25 February 2010, http://www.elmundo.es/america/2010/02/24/cuba/1267033261.html. [6] Blog de Medicina Cubana [Cuban Medicine Blog], La Tortura, mtodo sistemtico de castigo en Cuba [Torture: systematic method of punishment in Cuba], 9 January 2006, http://medicinacubana.blogspot.com/2006/01/la-tortura-mtodo-sistemtico-de-castigo. html. [7] Comisin Cubana de Derechos Humanos y Reconciliacin Nacional (CCDHRN) [Cuban Commission of Human Rights and National Reconciliation], Algunos actos de represin poltica registrados en Cuba durante Agosto de 2011 [A few acts of political repression noted in Cuba in August 2011], 11 pages, p. 1, http://www.cubanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/OVERVIEWCOMISION-AGOSTO-2011.pdf. [8] Amnesty International, Cuban prisoner of conscience released, 25 June 2010, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ AMR25/010/2010/en/5119bb61-b93a-40c0-919e-8f2dc0f154bd/amr250102010en.pdf. [9] Amnesty International, Cuba's Ladies in White targeted with arbitrary arrest and intimidation, 22 August 2011, http://www. amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/cuba%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98ladies-white%E2%80%99-targeted-arbitrary-arrestandintimidation-2011-08-22; CCDHRN, op. cit., p. 4 and 6. [10] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IAHCR), IACHR Condemns Death of Orlando Zapata, 26 February 2010, http://www.cidh.org/comunicados/English/2010/22-10eng.htm. [11] Amnesty International, CUBA, Newly declared prisoners of conscience, 29 January 2004, 4 pages, p. 3 and 4, http://www.amnesty.org/es/library/asset/AMR25/002/2004/es/3453cf2b-d648-11dd-ab95-a13b602c0642/amr250022004en. pdf. [12] Fallece el preso poltico cubano Orlando Zapata Tamayo [Political prisoner Orlando Zapata Tamayo dies], Pblico.es, 24 February 2010, http://www.publico.es/internacional/297460/fallece-el-preso-politico-cubano-orlando-zapata-tamayo. [13] CCDHRN, Algunos actos de represin poltica registrados en Cuba durante abril de 2011 [A few acts of political repression noted in Cuba in April 2011], 5 April 2011, 19 pages, p. 13, http://www.upyd.es/contenidos/ficheros/59455; Chronicle of a Kidnapping, Cubarights.blogspot.com, 26 April 2011, http://cubarights.blogspot.com/2011/04/chronicle-of-kidnapping-miguel-iturria.html. [14] Consejo de Relatores de Derechos Humanos de Cuba (CRDHC) [Council of Human Rights Rapporteurs in Cuba], Informe sobre la situacin de Derechos Humanos en Cuba Enero a Diciembre de 2009 [Report on the Human-Rights situation in Cuba between Jamuary and December 2009], 26 January 2010, 52 pages, http://derechoshumanoscuba.blogspot.com/2010/02/informe-anualdel-crdhcenero-diciembre.html. [15] La prisin del sida, con los mismos problemas materiales y humanos que Mazorra [The AIDS prison with the same materiel and human problems as Mazorra], Ddcuba.com, 3 February 2011,http://www.ddcuba.com/derechos-humanos/2946-laprision-del-sida-con-los-mismos-problemas-materiales-y-humanos-quemazorra.
50
51
HONDURAS
the interim regime, and has re-joined the Organization of American States (OAS) on 1 June 2011 after Manuel Zelaya was allowed to return to Honduras.
PRACTICE OF TORTURE
The coup resulted in a sudden and massive recrudescence of the torture phenomenon. The 2.5-case monthly average of torture between January 2007 and June 2009, as determined by the Centre for the Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture Victims and Their Families (Centro de Prevencin, Tratamiento y Rehabilitacin de las Vctimas de la Tortura y sus Familiares, or CPTRT), rocketed to 118.75 between the coup dtat and October 2009.4 This practice has continued since, often in relation to the post-conflict context.
BACKGROUND
The 28 June 2009 coup dtat served as a reminder of the dark hours of the military regimes of the 1980s. For several months, an institutional crisis set President of the Republic Manuel Zelaya who wanted to organize a popular consultation on the convocation of a constituent assembly against the army, the Supreme Court of Justice and the National Congress (the parliamentary chamber), who opposed this project. On the day of the coup, military personnel abducted Manuel Zelaya and deported him to Costa Rica, with the approval of Parliament and the highest court in the country. Named interim Head of State, the President of Congress, Roberto Micheletti, immediately declared a curfew. As early as 28 June 2009, members of social movements (women, indigenous groups, homosexuals), students, workers, unionists, human rights defenders, journalists and religious leaders spontaneously formed the National Popular Resistance Front (Frente Nacional de Resistencia Popular, or FNRP), which organized numerous protest meetings against the new government, deemed illegitimate. In response, the de facto authorities declared a state of emergency on 1 July 2009, authorizing detentions without charges and restricting personal liberties as well as freedoms of movement and of association.1 Throughout the second half of 2009, the army and police arbitrarily arrested over 3,000 people, 600 of whom were children and teenagers,2 frequently using excessive force: beatings, ill-treatment, torture and, in at least ten cases, homicides.3 The holding of general elections in November 2009 and the election of Porfirio Lobo Sosa as President did not ease tensions: human rights violations are still being reported, and the perpetrators of these offences have yet to be tried. Despite this situation, at the international level, the new Head of State has re-established contact with the United Nations and the European Union (EU), who had not recognized
Victims
Since June 2009, ill-treatment and torture are used as a means of political repression against people who openly criticize the administration, human rights activists, independent journalists, and leaders of economic and social movements. On 2 February 2010, Francisco C. and Carlos D., two political activists who exchanged information on the coup in the capital, Tegucigalpa, were arrested and tortured by the police, who interrogated them regarding their sources of financing and possible weapons caches.5 To discourage opponents and silence them, their loved ones and children are sometimes targeted. Thus, on 17 February 2010, Dara Gudiel, a 17-year-old girl, was found hanged in the city of Danl, after having been kidnapped and tortured for two days. Her father, a journalist, hosted a pro-FNRP radio show.6 Attacks on the physical and moral integrity of women and femicides (the systematic violence against women and their murder because of their gender) have doubled in intensity. Most women questioned following protests have been subjected to sexual abuse, particularly to humiliate the other party.7 In 2010, 385 women were killed, according to the National Police, and 483 according to the Observatory of Violent Deaths of Women and Femicides.8 Latin American nationals were persecuted as left-wing enemies because they came from countries perceived as socialist (based on the government in place or the presence of guerillas) and/or supporting Manuel Zelaya, such as Nicaragua, Venezuela and Colombia.9 For example, Milko Durn Cspedes, a simple Colombian
52
53
tourist, was arrested on 12 August 2009 at a military-police checkpoint, then beaten until he confessed to working for the Marxist guerilla of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and financing protesters.10 Already targeted, those citizens who are traditionally excluded from society (inmates, the poor, sexual minorities and indigenous peoples, etc.) were subjected to even more aggression and social cleansing operations. 31 homosexuals were killed between June 2009 and December 2010,11 and homosexual inmates were also attacked and raped, with the approval of State agents. Under the pretext of fighting crime, particularly from teenage gangs (pandilleros), young people from disadvantaged neighborhoods continue to be the object of police brutality.12 Finally, small landless farmers have also been targeted, particularly in the Bajo Agun region, affected by a long-standing conflict regarding the allocation of land between large landowners and rural farmers organizations such as the Authentic Peasant Protest Movement of Agun (MARCA) and the United Peasants Movement of Agun (MUCA). Starting in December 2009, families of rural farmers have taken to recuperating land promised by the former president, and, in retaliation, have been subjected to violent expulsions, torture and summary executions despite the reaching of an agreement on the redistribution of farmlands on 13 April 2010. For example, Alejandro Gmez, a member of a cooperative affiliated with MARCA, was kidnapped on 10 May 2011, beaten for three days, and left for dead by his kidnappers.13
Most cases of ill-treatment and torture took place in the country's two main cities, Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula, where most protests are held, at border crossings, and in rural areas prone to agrarian conflicts. Abuses generally arise during questioning, transport, detention in police stations, but also in illegal centres (stadiums, barracks, parks, etc.). In Tegucigalpa, the first instances of abuse following arbitrary arrests after the coup took place on the Parliament's premises. On 12 August 2009, 28 people were questioned, then taken inside the building perimeter where they were beaten, forced to remove their shirts, and thrown to the ground before being transferred to the Cobra offices.19 Prisons and detention centres that were already the sites of ill-treatment and torture before the coup dtat20 are still the sites of such abuses.

The most common techniques are beatings (with feet, baseball bats, rifle butts, and clubs [tolete]); mock executions; suffocations; the deprivation of food, sleep and access to toilets; cigarette burns; and exposure to chemical products such as teargas. Women are mostly subjected to sexual assaults, particularly beatings on the buttocks and thighs and forcing batons between their legs and genitals.21 One victim, I.M., testified: They say things like: Old whores, why arent you home making dinner? What are you looking for here? Oh, what you want is sex. What youre trying to say is that you want to get it on.22 Such acts seek to obtain information, or to coerce or punish citizens deemed favorable to the former president. Law enforcement agents regularly say things like All of this is because youre a Melista (a supporter of Mel, the nickname of the ousted president) or That's what happens when youre a communist23 while hitting their victims during protests.

Before the coup dtat, the main security forces reported for acts of torture were, in order: the National Preventive Police (PNP); the Criminal Investigations Division (DGIC); the Cobra Special Operations Commando, an elite police force trained in counter-insurgency; plainclothes police units (traffic, border, and municipal police); Prison Police; and anti-drugs squads.14 Since 28 June 2009, the military are listed among the main torturers.15 Despite several efforts launched in 2010,16 human rights education and training of law enforcement officers remains insignificant. Agents of private security companies, which could number between 20,000 and 70,000,17 also use violence against civilians in support of the police and the army or under the orders of large landowners in the Bajo Agun. The individuals who kidnapped and tortured Ramn Chinchilla, a MUCA leader, on 8 January 2011, were, according to him, Cobra police officers, military personnel, and men dressed as armed guards paid by Miguel Facuss Barjum,18 the head of a powerful agro-industrial group specialized in palm oil and a known supporter of the coup.
54
55

Honduras is a party to the American Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nations Convention against Torture, and its Optional Protocol. In general, even since the coup, authorities have not impeded visits from international organizations like the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) or the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and they have accepted the recommendations made in the Universal Periodic Review* (UPR) in November 2010 and March 2011. In September 2010, the Lobo Sosa administration also proposed the creation of an international commission based on the model of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala. The Constitution of Honduras provides, in Article 68, that No one shall be subjected to torture, or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Penal Code, since its revision in 1996, criminalizes torture. Under its Article 209-A, agents or employees of the State who are guilty of such acts may be sentenced to between five to fifteen years imprisonment, depending on the seriousness of the harm caused, and barred from exercising any public duty for a period twice as long as the sentence. Nonetheless, this text does not apply to members of the armed forces, who are subject to the Military Code, Article 218 of which, on torture, provides for lesser punishments.24 In addition, the Penal Code contains no specific mention of the crime of enforced disappearance*. It also establishes the offence of illicit association (Art. 332), allowing for the questioning of suspects without a warrant, and their automatic temporary detention. This provision is clearly directed at young people suspected of belonging to a gang, and creates situations that foster ill-treatment. Prohibited by the 2002 Code of Criminal Procedure, obligatory preventive detention is still commonplace.
On 5 May 2010, the Supreme Court of Justice, which validated the interim presidency of Roberto Micheletti, relieved one magistrate and three judges of their duties for inappropriate political bias. It did, however, abstain from sanctioning those magistrates who publicly supported the de facto government.26 Furthermore, the unit of the Attorney General's Office specialized in human rights faces many difficulties in carrying out its mission. It has only two offices, in Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula, and lacks equipment and personnel. Prosecutors have an average caseload of 400 cases. By late 2009, this unit had only handled 20 of the cases brought to its attention. The increase in its budget, approved by the Parliament as of April 2011, has been proposed for only one year. In addition, it will only have eight DGIC police officers at its disposal to conduct investigations. These agents, connected to the Ministry of Defence and largely involved in human rights violations, lack the necessary independence. Furthermore, under the presidency of Roberto Micheletti, military and police personnel refused to cooperate for ballistics tests or grant access to facilities.27 In the face of these challenges, prosecutors have conducted certain investigations themselves. Habeas corpus appeals are now practically impossible. In August 2009, during the visit of the IACHR, the assigned judges testified to attacks against them and to the refusal of police agents to release detained persons.28 Some appeals were closed because the prisoners had just been released: most detentions lasted between fortyfive-minutes and twenty-four-hours,29 and were not recorded. Similarly, initiatives taken by Porfirio Lobo Sosa regarding human rights violations committed after the coup have so far produced no results. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission* established in April 2010 to identify actions that led to the crisis situation concluded, in a report published on 7 July 2011, that there had, in fact, been a coup dtat as well as a violation of the Constitution on the part of Manuel Zelaya. In any event, this project includes no guarantee of an investigation, of justice, or of reparation.30 The first months after the establishment of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, created in September, have so far brought no structural changes.31 Actually, both the instigators and those who benefited from the coup, still to be found in the corridors of power, as well as those members of the security forces involved in abuses, enjoy considerable impunity, which is strengthened by certain measures the authorities have introduced. On 27 January 2010, on the occasion of his investiture, Porfirio Lobo Sosa ratified the Amnesty Decree adopted by Congress the previous day, applicable to political crimes committed between 1 January 2008 and that date. This text theoretically

The lack of independence and means of the judicial branch hinders investigations. There is no single autonomous body in charge of the appointment of judges and of disciplinary measures likely to curb the political pressures brought to bear on members of the judiciary. The Constitutional Reform of 2001, providing for the creation of a Council of the Judiciary (Consejo de la Judicatura) has yet to be implemented.25
56
57
excludes human rights violations but, because of its ambiguous construction, it can in practice hinder investigations and prosecutions.32 Named Member of Parliament for life in January 2010 as a reward for his efforts on behalf of democracy, in violation of the Constitution, coup leader Roberto Micheletti technically enjoys absolute immunity. The same month, the Supreme Court definitively acquitted six high-ranking military officers connected with the coup dtat, for having acted in defence of democracy and peace in their country.33 Several army leaders under the de facto regime have been appointed to important positions in the current government, despite being the objects of complaints.34 On 18 November 2010, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court*, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, announced the launch of an investigation into the various accusations of massive torture committed in Honduras in the wake of the coup dtat.35
of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers Association (Rel-IUF), Honduras-Bajo Agun : Les rseaux internationaux dnoncent la poursuite des assassinats et autres graves violations des droits de lhomme [Honduras, Bajo Agun: International Networks Decry Ongoing Murders and Other Serious Human Rights Violations], 21 June 2011, http://www.reluita.org/agricultura/palma_africana/pronunciamiento_internacional-fra.htm. [14] CPTRT, op. cit., p. 9. [15] IACHR, op. cit., p. 2. [16] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, op. cit., p. 14. [17] United Nations, Human Rights Council, 4th Session, Report of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, Addendum, Mission to Honduras, A/ HRC/4/42/Add.1, 20 February 2007, 22 pages, p. 15, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/109/69/PDF/G0710969. pdf?OpenElement. [18] Misin de Verificacin Internacional [International Verification Mission] (APRODEV/CIFCA/FIAN Internacional/FIDH/RelUITA/Va Campesina Internacional), Honduras: Violaciones de Derechos Humanos en el Bajo Agun. Informe Preliminar [Honduras: Human-Rights Violations in the Bajo Agun, Prliminary Report], 25 February to 4 March 2011, 48 pages, p. 2, http://www.viacampesina.org/downloads/pdf/sp/Informe_mision_final.pdf. [19] HRW, op. cit., p. 14-15. [20] CPTRT, op. cit., p. 13. [21] IACHR, Honduras: Human Rights and the Coup dtat, p. 141. [22] Idem. [23] CPTRT, op. cit., p. 6. [24] United Nations, Committee Against Torture, 42nd Session, Observations finales du Comit contre la torture HONDURAS [Concluding Observations of the Committee Against Torture, Honduras] CAT/C/HND/CO/1, 23 June 2009, 11 pages, p. 2-3, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/CAT.C.HND.CO.1_fr.pdf. [25] HRW, op. cit., p. 38. [26] Ibidem, p. 40-41. [27] Ibid., p. 2-3. [28] IACHR, Honduras: Human Rights and the Coup dtat, p. 63. [29] HRW, op. cit., p. 34. [30] Misin de Verificacin Internacional [International Verification Mission], op. cit., p. 6. [31] IACHR, Preliminary Observations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on its visit to Honduras, May 15 to 18, 2010, p. 30. [32] United Nations, Human Rights Council, 16th Session, Informe del Grupo de Trabajo sobre las Desapariciones Forzadas o Involuntarias. Informe de seguimiento a las recomendaciones hechas por el Grupo de Trabajo sobre las misiones a Guatemala y Honduras [Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Follow-Up Report on the Recommendations Made by the Working Group on the Missions to Guatemala and Honduras], A/HRC/16/48/Add.2, 17 February 2011, 50 pages, p. 41-42, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/108/45/PDF/G1110845.pdf?OpenElement. [33] Misin de Verificacin Internacional [International Verification Mission], op. cit., p. 6. [34] IACHR, op. cit., p. 30. [35] ICC Prosecutor opens probes into Honduras, Nigeria, Af.reuters.com, 18 November 2010, http://af.reuters.com/article/ topNews/idAFJOE6AH0LL20101118.
[1] Human Rights Watch (HRW), After the Coup, Ongoing Violence, Intimidation, and Impunity in Honduras, 20 December 2010, 65 pages, p. 12, http://www.hrw.org/node/94958. [2] United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the violations of human rights in Honduras since the coup dtat on 28 June 2009, 3 March 2010, 18 pages, p. 9, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/ bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-66.pdf. [3] Amnesty International, Report 2010, Human Rights in Republic of Honduras, http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/honduras/ report-2010. [4] Centro de Prevencin, Tratamiento y Rehabilitacin de las Vctimas de la Tortura y sus Familiares ( CPTRT) [Center for the Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture Victims and Their families], Tortura: Represin Sistemtica tras el Golpe de Estado [Torture: Systematic Repression after the Coup dtat], 30 October 2009, 19 pages, p. 12, http://www.cptrt.org/pdf/Tortura_ Represion_Sistematica_GolpeEstado.pdf. [5] HRW, op. cit., p. 25-26. [6] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), Preliminary Observations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on its visit to Honduras, May 15 to 18, 2010, 3 June 2010, 31 pages, p. 17, http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Honduras10eng/ IACHRPreliminaryObservationsHondurasVisitMay2010.pdf. [7] IACHR, Honduras: Human Rights and the Coup dtat, 30 December 2009, 153 pages, p. 136, http://www.cidh.oas.org/pdf%20 files/HONDURAS2009ENG.pdf. [8] Observatorio de Muertes Violentas de Mujeres y Femicidio [Observatory of Violent Deaths of Women and Femicides], Resultados del anlisis enero-diciembre 2010 [Results of the January-December 2010 analysis], March 2011, 12 pages, p. 1, http://www.cawn.org/assets/09-05-11Informe%20Femicidios%20Observatorio%20ENE-DIC-2010.pdf. [9] CPTRT, II seminario de prevencin y abordaje de tratos crueles, inhumanos o degradantes en las crceles de Guatemala [Seminar on the prevention of and approach to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Guatemala's jails], Presentation of the CPTRT/Honduras, 17, 18 and 19 October 2005, 15 pages, p. 6, http://www.cptrt.org/pdf/Tortura_guat.pdf. [10] HRW, op. cit., p. 25. [11] International Homosexual and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), Three Murders in Two Weeks: Protest the Killings of LGBT People in Honduras, 12 January 2011, http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/takeaction/globalactionalerts/1308.html. [12] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2010 Human Rights Report: Honduras, 8 April 2011, 47 pages, p. 33, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160459.pdf. [13] Latin American Association of Organizations for the Promotion of Development (Asociacin Latinoamericanas de Organizaciones de Promocin, or ALOP), Association Association of WCC-related Development Organizations in Europe (Association dagences de dveloppement lies au conseil mondial des glises, or APRODEV), Copenhagen Initiative for Central America and Mxico (CIFCA), FoodFirst Information and Action Network (FIAN International), International Federation for Human Rights (Fdration internationale des Ligues des droits de lHomme, or FIDH), Southern Group of Va Campesina International (Grupo Sur, La Va Campesina Internacional), Interamerican Platform for Human Rights, Democracy and Development (Plataforma Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Democracia y Desarrollo, or PIDHDD) and Latin American Region of the International Union
58
59
UNITED STATES
PRACTICE OF TORTURE Victims

In the United States, the 25,000 to 80,000 individuals5 confined in super-maximumsecurity quarters or facilities, called Supermax, are held under conditions which constitute ill-treatment or torture. Specifically charged with aiding the enemy for having divulged thousands of diplomatic cables on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the WikiLeaks website, PFC Bradley Manning, 24, was placed in extreme solitary confinement* for ten months in the maximum-security military prison at the Quantico marine base in Virginia before being transferred to a less severe prison in 2011. Certain inmates have been kept in cruel and inhuman conditions for several years or even several decades, as is the case of two African-Americans, Albert Woodfox and Herman Wallace, accused of murder in 1972 and detained ever since in the Closed Cell Restriction unit (CCR) of a Louisiana prison.6 In general, isolation is also the rule for the 3,200 inmates on death row.7 Given the complexity of judicial procedures and the multiple appeals possible, these convicts must spend an average time of fourteen years from the death verdict to its application.8 Before his execution on 21 September 2011, suspended for more than four hours due to a last-minute appeal, African-American Troy Davis had already had to prepare himself to die on three occasions, a treatment amounting to psychological torture*.9 In addition to the mental suffering linked to the fact of living under a death sentence, these prisoners risk enduring terrible physical pain during execution (see Death penalty and torture, p. 297-306,). Nor does violence spare other inmates. Between October 2008 and December 2009, there were, for example, 36,800 allegations of staff sexual misconduct (touching and unwanted sexual contacts) in all detention facilities throughout the country.10 Illegal immigrants, particularly those who cross the border between the United States and Mexico, are often subjected to brutality and excessive use of force. Anastasio Hernndez Roja, a 32-year-old Mexican, died on 30 May 2010, two days after having been clubbed and shocked with a stun gun by several Border Patrol and Customs and Border protection officers.11 According to the Mexican authorities, 12 of their nationals were killed or injured in 2009 under similar circumstances, compared to five in 2008. Ethnic minorities (particularly African-Americans and Hispanics); homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders; individuals suffering from mental illnesses; homeless
BACKGROUND
Ill-treatment and acts of torture perpetrated by members of the US military and CIA in detention centres in Afghanistan and Iraq, at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba, and in CIA-managed black sites* abroad in the name of the War on Terror, are not unusual in US history. During the Cold War, the country had standardized such practices in the Third World. It even created a Latin American Training Center Ground Division in Panama in 1946 to teach approximately 60,000 Latin American soldiers how to fight against communism through methods such as executions, blackmail, the detention of loved ones, enforced disappearance* and torture.1 This school was transferred to Fort Benning, Georgia in 1984. Since his accession to office on 21 January 2009, President Barack Obama has stated his commitment to human rights, officially outlawed the recourse to enhanced interrogation techniques constituting torture, endorsed then used from 2002 to 2008, and put an end to the CIA's secret detention program. The Head of State also dropped the expression War on Terror from political discourse. Yet his country remains engaged in an armed conflict with the perpetrators of 9/11: a non-State actor, al-Qaeda (as well as the Taliban forces that harbored al-Qaeda),2 a conflict which is conducive to abuses. However, human rights violations committed outside the country must not distract from the extremely worrisome situation that prevails within the US territory. The detention conditions of the 2.2 million inmates reported in 2010 the highest prison population in the world3 are often disgraceful, and the practices of security services reveal numerous cases of excessive use of force. The United States were called out on the persistence of these problems in their first Universal Periodic Review* in 2010.4
60
61
people; refugees and asylum seekers; juveniles and women are particularly vulnerable to abuse by law enforcement agencies members and to ill-treatment while in detention. Kelly Thomas, a 37-year-old vagrant, was savagely beaten by six police officers and received several electric shocks on 5 July 2011, in the city of Fullerton, California.12 He died five days later. The armed conflict with al-Qaeda still leads to human rights violations. For example, among the 171 individuals still imprisoned in the Guantanamo prison as of August 2011, 46 were in indefinite detention without charge or trial13 and without knowing how long they would remain there. One of them, a 37-year-old Afghani, hanged himself in May 2011. 89 other prisoners cleared for release by the government were still at the US base due to difficulties regarding their transfer to their countries of origin or to a host country. Under Barack Obama's administration, Aziz Abdul Naji and Fahri Sad ben Mohammad, two Algerian inmates, were sent back, against their will, to their country, where they feared for their physical integrity.14 In Afghanistan, approximately 2,400 persons were also imprisoned without charge or trial in the Parwan Detention Facility,15 at US Bagram Air Base. Several Afghans arrested after January 2009 reported having been ill-treated in a secret detention* centre run by Special Forces military personnel, which locals have nicknamed the black jail. Among other things, they were exposed to extreme cold and permanent lighting in their cells, prevented from practicing their religion, and subjected to forced nudity.16 In April 2011, the US government admitted the existence of 20 temporary clandestine prisons meant for the interrogation of presumed terrorists, but denied allegations of human rights violations.17 The authorities also recognized a case of secret detention regarding Somalian Ahmed Abdul Kadir Warsame, suspected of having ties with the al-Shabaab jihadist militias who control part of Somalia, and with al-Qaeda. Arrested on 19 April 2011 in the Persian Gulf, he was subsequently interrogated for two months on a US warship,18 without access to the International Committee of the Red Cross or to a lawyer, and without any charge. Moreover, several Muslim Americans have allegedly been the target of secret arrests and interrogations, sometimes of violence, in some African or Middle Eastern countries, at the US government's instigation.19 For example, in December 2010, Gulet Mohamed, a 19-year-old Somali-American, was kidnapped in Kuwait by local security forces, detained, questioned, beaten with bats, threatened with electric shocks, forced to stand up for hours, and deprived of sleep. Like most other victims, he had to explain the reasons for his stay in Somalia and especially in Yemen, al-Qaeda's new stronghold. During his detention, he was visited by FBI agents, who allegedly put brutal pressure on him to obtain
information.20 Called proxy detention or rendition lite by NGOs, these practices demonstrate that the Obama administration continues to subcontract the violent interrogations and ill-treatment of suspects to countries known for practicing torture.

US law enforcement officers are regularly accused of brutality and use of unjustified or excessive sometimes even fatal force by international bodies such as the Committee Against Torture* (CAT)21 and human rights organizations. Among the 6,613 police agents involved in professional misconduct in 2010, 1,575 were accused of using excessive force, 354 of sexual assault, and 297 of physical violence.22 Sheriffs and their deputies, who carry out police duties and manage prisons in their respective counties a territorial subunit within the United States also resort to ill-treatment. For example, violence is endemic in the detention centres of Los Angeles County, where prisoners regularly have their heads banged against walls and windows, are thrown to the ground and kicked, or are tasered.23 In 2011, inmate Juan Pablo Reyes was punched in the ribs, back, mouth and eyes, had his eye socket broken, and was then forced to undress. Some Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and Border Patrol officers, placed under the authority of the US Department of Homeland Security, are found guilty of assault against migrants. The lack of clear rules on the conditions under which use of lethal force is allowed and the massive recruitment of border patrol officers over the last twenty years have multiplied the risks of abuse.24 The disastrous conditions prevalent in the country's detention centres are fertile ground for mistreatments, even torture. A consequence of a crime-fighting policy based essentially on imprisonment, overcrowding is resulting in very harsh detention conditions: lack of separation between the various categories of inmates, especially between juveniles and adults; tension between inmates and guards; hygiene and health problems; lack of medical treatment. In May 2011, the US Supreme Court ordered the State of California to reduce, within two years, its level of prison occupancy to 137.5% of its theoretical capacity, compared to the then almost 200% capacity. In its ruling, the court specifically noted that 54 detainees shared the same toilets, and that prisoners suffering from psychiatric problems had been placed, following crisis, in cages
62
63
the size of a phone booth while awaiting a medical examination. It also cited several cases where detainees died due to the lack of medical care.25 Maximum-security units and jails, notable for the practice of extreme and prolonged isolation, have multiplied over the last twenty years. They were originally designed to prevent communication between members of criminal organizations and to separate inmates deemed the worst of the worst from the rest of the prison population, as was the case of French national Zacarias Moussaoui, sentenced to life imprisonment for conspiring in the 11 September 2001 attacks, or US terrorist Ted Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber. These places now also house persons who pose no threat. Generally speaking, inmates placed in solitary confinement are kept locked up for twenty-two to twenty-three hours per day in a tiny cell, deprived of personal effects, leisure, intellectual or physical activity, and placed under permanent video surveillance. They are often shackled at the wrists and ankles whenever they leave their cells and are forbidden any contact with their co-inmates, and sometimes even with their relatives (restrictions on phone calls and visits). When visits do take place, inmates can only see their loved ones through a glass partition, without the slightest physical contact.26 Isolation without mental stimulation or social interaction for more than thirty days aggravates the health of prisoners who are already psychologically fragile, and provokes mental problems in others: apathy, anxiety, psychosis, panic attacks, hallucinations, suicidal thoughts, depression, self mutilation27 In July 2011, inmates in the solitary confinement block of the Pelican Bay prison in California went on a hunger strike to protest their treatment and the excessive time they spent confined in their cells.28 Some of them repeated the strike the following October, partly due to the reprisals carried out by the guards. Detention conditions in the approximately 370 immigration holding centres in the country are similar to those of prisons. 363,000 men, women and children, including asylum seekers and refugees, were imprisoned prior to their deportation or their appearance before a judge in 2010.29 Treated like criminals, these individuals must sometimes wear a uniform as well as handcuffs and ankle shackles whenever they leave their cells,30 and are deprived of hygiene, food and proper medical care. Between October 2003 and October 2011, 124 immigrants have died in detention.31 For instance, in 2008, a federal court held that ICE refusal to grant a biopsy to Francisco Castaneda a Salvadoran held from March 2006 to February 2007 who subsequently died of cancer violated the Constitutional ban on cruel treatment.32 In addition, sexual assaults committed by personnel are common practice in these premises.33

Agents charged with maintaining order mainly use insults, particularly racist ones, punches, clubbings, choke holds, gunfires, and devices producing electric shocks such as remote-controlled stun belts, electrified shields, dart-firing stun guns, and Tasers. According to the CAT, however, the use of the latter may cause severe pain, constituting a form of torture.34 Between 2001 and 2010, this weapon was often used abusively to control suspects who posed no threat and contributed to the deaths of over 50 people.35 Placement in solitary confinement has become a default disciplinary sanction to punish any inmate seen as a troublemaker or guilty of minor infractions of the rules, such as the unauthorized possession of five dollars in the State of California.36 This measure thus serves as a warning to other prisoners. It also serves as an easy solution for prison authorities in the management of everyday disturbances in a detention centre, by segregating fragile individuals or those suffering from mental problems instead of making the necessary adjustments.37 Under the two successive terms of George W. Bush, Department of Justice advisers drafted several memoranda legalizing certain methods of torture to extract information in the context of War on Terrorism. These include, first of all, physical altercations; walling, which consists of violently throwing the inmate against a wall; immobilization of the head; slaps to the face; locking the inmate up in a cramped space; wall standing, or having the inmate stand against a wall; confinement in an enclosed space with insects; under-feeding; sleep deprivation; and waterboarding*. In March 2003, the alleged leader behind the 2001 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was waterboarded 183 times. These enhanced interrogation techniques were subsequently extended to sensory deprivation; prolonged isolation; twenty-hour-long interrogation sessions; hooding during transfer and interrogation; forced nudity; forced shaving; use of individual's phobias such as the fear of dogs; exposure to extreme temperatures or deafening music; spraying with iced water; punches to the stomach; shackles, including leg irons; and maintaining the inmate in painful positions for extended periods. The army's new field manual, which became official in 200638 and was also intended for the CIA as of January 2009, includes interrogation methods that still constitute ill-treatment or torture: solitary confinement, renamed physical separation, for thirty days or more; the possibility of preventing the inmate from sleeping more than four consecutive hours in any twenty-four-hour period; and the option of depriving him of one or more of his senses or of limiting all of them. In this handbook,
64
65
the definition of sensory deprivation has been expanded to include the complete deprivation of all sensory stimuli. It also authorizes techniques aimed at terrifying the inmate, including exploiting his fears, and makes no mention whatsoever of stress positions, thereby, not prohibiting them explicitly.

Passed by Congress in 1996, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) has considerably reduced the possibility for detainees victims of ill-treatment or torture to file a suit for damages. They must first have exhausted all remedies within the prison administration and prove the existence of physical harm before they can attempt to sue in court. The text, which does not consider psychological damages related to detention, can hinder the administration of justice, particularly in cases of brutalities and sexual assault attributable to prison personnel.42 In 1995, following a class action suit filed by inmates in solitary confinement in the Pelican Bay prison, a federal judge found that such detention conditions may exceed the limits of what most humans can psychologically tolerate and should not be applied to fragile people or to those suffering from mental problems.43 He did not, however, rule that they constituted a violation of the Constitution. The case law of the Supreme Court, which held in 1991 that extended confinement of prisoners to their cells satisfied fundamental human requirements,44 follows the same lines. As regards the UPR, authorities have mentioned hundreds of investigations regarding detainee abuse allegations, which occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo, and the adoption of hundreds of disciplinary actions.45 However, impunity is still the norm for instigators and perpetrators of torture, enforced disappearances* and extraordinary renditions* committed as part of the fight against on terrorism. President Barack Obama, who promised to prosecute these criminals in accordance with international obligations, subsequently deemed it necessary to move forward rather than look at what we got wrong in the past.46 Thus, since the early release, on 6 August 2011, of Corporal Charles Graner, who had been given the longest sentence (ten years imprisonment), all of the 11 soldiers involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal are free, and no senior officer has been bothered. On 30 June 2011, the Attorney General, who is also the head of the Department of Justice, announced that almost all cases opened in 2009 regarding violent interrogation techniques used by the CIA on 101 persons secretly detained abroad would be dropped. In August 2009, he had already stated that his Department would not prosecute any person who acted in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance.47 However, at least one of the closed cases revealed practices which were not authorized by the torture memos made public in 2008 with the release of a top secret report drafted in 2004 by CIA's Inspector General. Between 28 December 2002 and 1 January 2003, US intelligence agents used a handgun and power drill to

The United States are party to the Geneva Conventions and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as the United Nations Convention Against Torture, but with many reservations. In particular, the ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is limited to ill-treatment as defined by the US Constitution of 1787. The country agrees to receive and examine communications* from a State party only if the latter has made a similar declaration.39 In addition, the United States have not ratified the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, the first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Statute of the International Criminal Court*, nor any convention of the inter-American system of human rights. In terms of federal legislation, torture does not constitute a specific criminal offence. The 8th Amendment of the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and the 14th Amendment provides that no federal State will deprive a person of life, liberty or ownership over their property without due process of law. As for the United States Code, in Article 2340(a), it punishes anyone who commits or intends to commit an act of torture with a fine or a prison sentence of up to twenty years, and provides for the death penalty or life imprisonment in cases where the victim dies. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) prohibits cruelty and mistreatment.40 After the release of photos taken in the Abu Ghraib prison, Congress adopted a law in 2005 called the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) which prohibits US citizens subjecting any person held into their custody or control to cruel and inhuman punishment or treatment, regardless of the detainee's nationality or location. However, since its revision in 2006, the War Crimes Act, which implements the Geneva Conventions, no longer criminalizes any violation of Common Article 3 banning outrages against personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment but only these labeled as grave breaches previously defined and enumerated by the government.41
66
67
frighten Saudi Arabian Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, then the main suspect in the attack on the US naval ship, the USS Cole.48 The US administration has regularly invoked the doctrine of state secrets privilege to shut down litigation, based on the notion that judicial proceedings would reveal information or evidence that might jeopardize national security. For example, in May 2011, under the pressure of the authorities, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case of Binyam Mohamed et al v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.49 Five plaintiffs had filed a complaint against the airline company involved in secret flights organized by the CIA to transfer presumed terrorists to foreign countries, there to be tortured. Similarly, on 27 June 2011, the court dismissed the cases of 250 former detainees of Abu Ghraib and other Iraqi detention centres who wanted to sue two private companies under contract with the US army for torture, abuse and sexual assault.50 These political obstacles cast serious doubts on the outcome of the two suits authorized by a district judge51 and a federal judge52 against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and on the political will to open a wide-ranging criminal investigation into crimes of torture committed during the War on Terror. None of the senior military officials, political leaders and high-ranking officials who ordered or approved these acts and other human rights violations has been the subject of an investigation. No torture victim has received justice or reparation. In the face of such inertia, human rights defenders, judges from other countries and victims are placing their hopes in universal jurisdiction*, and the political will of their government to prosecute those responsible. In October 2011, Amnesty International asked Canadian authorities to arrest George W. Bush under this principle during his visit to their country.53 Since 2009, a proceeding initiated by three former Guantanamo detainees has been opened in Spain against the authors of the torture memos.
[6] Amnesty International, The cruel and Inhuman treatment of Albert Woodfox and Herman Wallace, 5 April 2011, 2 pages, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/025/2011/en/8e8b2238-1b6b-432e-b87b-aa8a5d928892/amr510252011en.pdf. [7] Amnesty International, Death sentences and executions 2010, March 2011, 60 pages, p. 16, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/ asset/ACT50/001/2011/en/ea1b6b25-a62a-4074-927d-ba51e88df2e9/act500012011en.pdf. [8] US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), Capital Punishment, 2009Statistical Tables, 2 December 2010, 23 pages, p. 1, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cp09st.pdf. [9] Troy Davis execution: repeated trips to death chamber amount to torture, Guardian.com, 20 September 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/20/troy-davis-execution-room-torture. [10] US Department of Justice, BJS, Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-09, August 2010, 91 pages, p. 7, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svpjri0809.pdf. [11] San Diego Police Investigate the Death of a Mexican Man Resisting Deportation, Nytimes.com, 1 June 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/us/02border.html. [12] Kelly Thomas: D.A. charges two officers with murder, manslaughter, Latimes.com, 21 September 2011, http://latimesblogs. latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/da-announces-kelly-thomas-murder-charges.html; . [13] Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), Guantanamo by the Numbers, 7 September 2011, http://ccrjustice.org/learnmore/faqs/ guantanamo-numbers-what-you-should-know-and-do-about-guantanamo. [14] Human Rights Watch (HRW), US: Dont Return Guantanamo Detainees Fearing Ill-Treatment, 19 July 2010, http://www.hrw.org/ news/2010/07/19/us-don-t-return-guantanamo-detainees-fearing-ill-treatment; Gitmo detainee transferred to Algeria despite torture fears, 7 January 2011, Edition.cnn.com, http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-07/us/scotus.algerian.detainee_1_detaineesalgerian-security-forces-mohammed?_s=PM:US. [15] Reprieve, Bagram Airbase, http://www.reprieve.org.uk/cases/bagram/. [16] Human Rights First (HRF), In Their Own Words: HRF Interviews with Former Detainees in Afghanistan, February 2011, http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/our-work/law-and-security/afghanistan/interviews-with-afghandetainees/; Afghans abused at secret prison at Bagram airbase, 15 April 2010, Bbc.co.uk, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8621973.stm; Open Society Foundations, Confinement Conditions at a U.S. Screening Facility on Bagram Air Base, 14 October 2010, 16 pages, http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/confinementconditions-20101014/confinementconditions-20101014.pdf. [17] Afghanistan Secret Prisons confirmed by U.S., Huffingtonpost.com, 4 April 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost. com/2011/04/08/afghanistan-secret-prison_n_846545.html. [18] ACLU, ACLU Supports Moving Terror Suspect to U.S. Court but Questions Unlawful Military Detention, 6 July 2011, http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-supports-moving-terror-suspect-us-court-questions-unlawful-militarydetention; US Department of Justice, Accused Al Shabaab Leader Charged with Providing Material Support to Al Shabaab and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, 5 July 2011, http://www.justice.gov/cjs/docs/news-07052011.html. [19] Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Allegations of FBI Pressure Tactics that Amount to Rendition, 15 June 2010, http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=26456&&name=n&&currPage=1&&Active=1; Is Proxy Detention the Obama's Administration Extraordinary Rendition-Lite?, Huffingtonpost.com, 7 January 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daphneeviatar/is-proxy-detention-the-ob_b_805998.html. [20] HRF, Aggressive FBI Interrogation of U.S. Teen in Kuwait Raises Concerns, 13 January 2011, http://www.humanrightsfirst. org/2011/01/13/aggressive-fbi-interrogation-of-us-teen-in-kuwait-raises-concerns/. [21] United Nations, Committee Against Torture, Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee Against Torture, United States of America, CAT/C/USA/CO/2, 25 July 2006, 10 pages, p. 8 and 9, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/432/25/ PDF/G0643225.pdf?OpenElement. [22] Injustice Everywhere, 2010 National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project (NPMSRP) Police Misconduct Statistical Report, 2011, http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?page_id=4135.
[1] SOA Watch, What is the SOA?, http://soaw.org/about-the-soawhinsec/what-is-the-soawhinsec; Truthout, The Military's Role in US Foreign Policy and Torture: Why Is School of the Americas Absent From the National Dialogue?, 6 October 2011, http://www.truth-out.org/activists-continue-efforts-shut-down-school-americas/1317836361; University of Saint Andrews, Report on the School of Americas, 6 March 1997, http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1997_rpt/soarpt.htm. [2] US Department of State, The Obama Administration and the International Law, 25 March 2010, http://www.state.gov/s/l/ releases/remarks/139119.htm. [3] International Centre for Prison Studies, World Prison Population List, 9th edition, 21 July 2011, 6 pages, p. 1, http://www.prisonstudies.org/images/news_events/wppl9.pdf. [4] United Nations, Human Rights Council, Compilation prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, United States of America, A/HRC/WG.6/9/USA/2, 12 August 2010, 18 pages, http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/session9/ US/A_HRC_WG.6_9_USA_2.pdf. [5] American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU BRIEFING PAPER: The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States, 13 pages, p. 1, http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/prison/stop_solitary_briefing_paper.pdf; Solitary Watch. Confronting Torture in U.S. Prisons: A Q & A with Solitary Watch, News from a Nation in Lockdown, Summer 2011, p. 3, http://solitarywatch. files.wordpress.com/2011/05/print-edition-summer-2011.pdf.
[23] ACLU, Cruel and Usual Punishments: How a Savage Gang of Deputies Controls LA County Jails, 28 September 2011, 27 pages, p. 2 and 3, http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/78162_aclu_jails_r2_lr.pdf. [24] Center for International Policy Americas Program, Lethal Force on the Border, 21 June 2010, http://www.cipamericas.org/ archives/2595. [25] Supreme Court of the United States, Brown v. Plata, 23 May 2011, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf. [26] ACLU, ACLU BRIEFING PAPER: The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States, p. 2 and 3; Amnesty International, Fresh call for end to harsh detention of Wikileaks soldier, 24 March 2011, http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-andupdates/fresh-call-end-harsh-detention-wikileaks-soldier-2011-03-24. [27] ARRIGO, Bruce A. and BULLOCK, Jennifer Leslie. The Psychological Effects of Solitary Confinement on Prisoners in Supermax Units, Reviewing What We Know and Recommending What Should Change, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, vol. 52, No. 6, December 2008, http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/52/6/622.full.pdf; Solitary Watch, Fact Sheet: Psychological Effects of Solitary Confinement, June 2011, 2 pages, http://solitarywatch.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ fact-sheet-psychological-effects-final.pdf. [28] Solitary Watch, Fact sheet: Hunger Strike at Pelican Bay State Prison, 22 July 2011, 2 pages, http://solitarywatch.files. wordpress.com/2011/06/fact-sheet-hunger-strike-at-pelican-bay.pdf.
68
[29] Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office of Immigration Statistics, Annual Report Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2010, June 2011, 4 pages, p. 1, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/enforcement-ar-2010.pdf. [30] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), Report on Immigration in the United States: Detention and Due Process, 30 December 2010, 155 pages, p. 86, http://cidh.org/pdf%20files/ReportOnImmigrationInTheUnited%20StatesDetentionAndDueProcess.pdf. [31] Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), List of deaths in ICE Custody, October 2003 3 October 2011, http://www.ice. gov/doclib/foia/reports/detaineedeaths2003-present.pdf. [32] United States District Court, Central District of California, Castaneda v. the United States of America, 11 March 2008, http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/0/6d9b8d3d3142d7be8825740b0053dbdc/$FILE/CV07-07241DDP.pdf. [33] HRW, Detained and at Risk Sexual Abuse and Harassment in United States Immigration Detention, 25 August 2011, 24 pages, http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0810webwcover.pdf. [34] United Nations, Committee Against Torture, Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture, France, CAT/C/ FRA/CO/4-6, 20 May 2010, 10 pages, p. 8, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G10/425/84/PDF/G1042584. pdf?OpenElement. [35] Amnesty International, United States of America: Amnesty International submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review, 19 April 2010, 10 pages, p. 6, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/027/2010/en/2ca99987-f73b-4707-9ad57758434a75ce/amr510272010en.pdf. [36] Solitary Watch, op. cit. [37] Supermax: les prisons de haute scurit aux tats-Unis [Supermax: High-Security Prisons in the United States], Courrier de lACAT, May-June 2011, 55 pages, p. 17-19, http://www.acatfrance.fr/medias/membre_p_courrier/doc/C308-juin_2011courrier-Acat.pdf. [38] Department of the Army, FM 2-22.3 (FM 34-52) Human Intelligence Collector Information, 6 September 2006, http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm2-22-3.pdf. [39] United Nations, Status of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 20 September 2011, 32 pages, p. 6, 7 and 24, http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Volume%20I/Chapter%20IV/IV-9. en.pdf. [40] Uniform Code of Military Justice, art. 93, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm. [41] CCR, CCR Files First New Challenges to Military Commissions Act, http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-filesfirst-new-challenges-military-commissions-act. [42] HRW, No Equal Justice, Prison Litigation Reform Act in the United States, 16 June 2009, 46 pages, http://www.hrw.org/sites/ default/files/reports/us0609web.pdf. [43] United States District Court, Northern District of California, Madrid v. Gomez, No. C90-3094-THE, 10 January 2005, http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15272924062550586562&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr. [44] United States Supreme Court, Wilson v. Seiter, No. 89-7376, 17 June 1991, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase. pl?court=US&vol=501&invol=294. [45] United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, United States of America, A/HRC/16/11, 4 January 2011, 30 pages, p. 9, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/100/69/PDF/G1110069. pdf?OpenElement. [46] Obama: Gitmo Likely Wont Close in First 100 Days, Abcnews.go.com, 11 January 2009, http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/ Economy/story?id=6619291&page=1. [47] United States Department of Justice, 24 August 2009, http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-0908241.html. [48] Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Special Review Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities (September 2001 October 2003), 7 May 2004, 160 pages, p. 47, http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20090825DETAIN/2004CIAIG.pdf. [49] United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, 8 September 2010, http://www.ca9. uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/08/08-15693.pdf. [50] HRF, Abu Ghraib Torture Victims Denied Their Day in Court, 27 June 2011, http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2011/06/27/abughraib-torture-victims-denied-their-day-in-court/. [51] United States District Court, District of Columbia, John Doe v. Donald Rumsfeld, No. 1:08-CV-1902, 2 August 2011, https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv1902-56. [52] United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel v. Donald Rumsfeld, Nos. 10-1687 & 10-2442, 8 August 2011, http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/A90TI9XZ.pdf. [53] Amnesty International, CANADA/USA: Visit to Canada of former US President George W. Bush and Canadian obligations under international law. Amnesty International memorandum to the Canadian authorities, 12 October 2011, 28 pages, http://www.amnesty. org/en/library/asset/AMR51/080/2011/en/24331aed-212e-4bc3-841d-72b262e2ab51/amr510802011en.pdf./08/A90TI9XZ.pdf.
70
71
VENEZUELA
Since 2004, the authorities have adopted several reforms to the Criminal Code and laws intended to restrict freedom of speech in the media, which either lose their licenses or are condemned to self-censorship out of fear of reprisals.3 They have also hampered freedom of association and the work of human rights defenders through campaigns of slander and judicial harassment, aggressions, and intimidations.4 Finally, as a response, specifically, to the massive criminality,5 security forces have increased without really being held accountable. Greatly imbued with militaristic values, they favour brutal interventions.6
PRACTICE OF TORTURE BACKGROUND

Hugo Chvez's victory in the December 1998 presidential election was supposed to break with a past of corruption, repression of social protests, and pauperisation due to neoliberal economic reforms and the crisis in oil-derived revenues. After the two attempted coups fomented by his organization, the Movimiento Bolivariano Revolucionario 200 (Bolivarian Revolutionary Movement 200, or MBR 200) in 1992, the former lieutenant-colonel managed to get himself elected democratically by championing the underprivileged sectors and by stressing his will to overhaul the political system through the establishment of a moral power and through popular participation. His earlier days in the presidency showed signs of positive changes for human rights. For example, in December 1999, the Head of State held a referendum to adopt a new Constitution for the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the country's new name, which recognizes the fundamental principles of universality, interdependence and indivisibility of human rights and asserts the precedence over domestic law of all treaties, pacts and conventions regarding human rights. Twelve years later, numerous voices have risen to decry the regime's authoritarian shift and its failure to respect fundamental rights. Step by step, Hugo Chvez has managed to extend the presidential mandate from four to six years, to raise the term limit to two consecutive terms, and finally to have his mandate renewal without any such limits at all. On four occasions, he got the National Assembly to grant him special powers to legislate by decree.1 The multiple co-optations and institutional reforms have caused the main autonomous agencies (the Attorney General's Office, the Supreme Court of Justice, the National Electoral Council) to come under his control and that of his affiliates,2 and threaten the independence of the legal system. The resort to torture, widely used throughout the 20th century, remains commonplace within the State security forces, the police and the army.7 In general terms, NGOs decry the lack of transparency and communication of the Public Defender's Office, an agency tasked with promoting and guaranteeing human rights. In 2008, this office nevertheless indicated that 87 of the 2,197 complaints filed for attacks against physical and moral integrity committed by security agents involved acts of torture, against 78 in 2007.8 As for the association Venezuelan Program of Action and Education in Human Rights, it noted a significant increase in cases brought to its attention between October 2009 and September 2010, including the cases of 10 victims who died during or after the acts of torture.9 Meanwhile, the NGO Justice and Peace Support Network has recorded 16 cases of torture during the first semester of 2011, i.e. 243 since January 2003. These data only give a partial account of the practice of torture: a large number of victims and their relatives ignore their rights and the complaint mechanisms, or prefers to remain silent out of fear of further assault.10
Victims
Most of the victims are men,11 young (between 18 and 38 years old), and come from society's most underprivileged layers. They are students (18%), workers (14%), people engaged in short-term employment (10%), tradesmen and homemakers (6%).12 In a context of poverty criminalization, citizens seen as potential sources of protest or delinquency and unlikely to file complaints are those most exposed to excessive use of force.
72
73
In May 2004, 22-year-old student Jhoward Serrano and the friends with whom he was chatting on the corner of the street where he lived were arrested by police officers of the State of Lara, and made to enter their patrol car, the reason given being that they were vagrants. The officers beat them, sprayed tear gas into their mouths, then finally released them, with the exception of Jhoward, whom they took to a secret location where he was tortured again. Having lost consciousness, he awoke up, abandoned in a street.13 To a lesser degree, some people run the risk of being mistreated and tortured because of their sexual preferences.14 Although their number is not usually taken into consideration, the main victims of torture and ill-treatment are prisoners. According to the figures provided in November 2009 by the Venezuelan Prisons Observatory to the United Nations Committee Against Torture* (CAT), the prison population rose to 32,820, including 22,328 in temporary detention (i.e. 68% of inmates), against a rated holding capacity of 12,000 inmates.15 Illegal deprivations of liberty and arbitrary transfers, which form the core of investigation methods, are the prelude to assault. In 2010, the CAT expressed concern for the number of inmates (2.2%) who died as a result of violence.16 In 2010, 352 prisoners died and 736 were wounded.17 This brutality is due to the criminal gangs, whose leaders (pranes) have taken over the jails, and is also a result of the lack of intervention or of the violent intervention of prison staffs. In May 2009, the guards of the Los Teques prison, searching for weapons and revolvers, had inmates strip for several hours. Twelve prisoners were injured, two of them by gunfire, during the search.18
Members of the Corps of Scientific, Penal and Criminal Investigations (CICPC) are those who resort most often to torture as a method of investigation.23 Alexander Infante Agrinzone, a 41-year-old taxi driver accused of kidnapping a businessman24 and arrested on 25 November 2009 by the CICPC in Tejeras, in the State of Aragua, died in the police station. The victim showed signs of cyanosis around the mouth and bluish fingernails, which the police attributed to an infarct.25 The Bolivarian Intelligence Service (SEBIN), the National Bolivarian Guard (GBN), the State police forces, foremost among which is the Metropolitan Police (PM) of the capital, Caracas,26 and the Immediate-Response Team of Penitentiary Guards (ERICP)27 are also accused of acts of torture.28 Furthermore, 50 of the 141 security agencies have already been involved in cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.29 This police violence is due to the poor training of the agents (barely 3.6% of them are trained and 70% have no procedural handbook),30 to the absence of coordination in the development of police units,31 to the lack of crime-prevention measures, and to upsurge in insecurity. The authoritarian policy comes with a well-designed media plan to justify to citizens the excessive use of force and the attacks on human rights committed on behalf of the struggle against criminality: press conferences and reports on spectacular gang-dismantling operations. Human rights violations generally begin where everyday life goes on, in the street and at home. Victims find themselves in the midst of a crack-down operation and are taken to police and military buildings, where they suffer torture and ill-treatment.32 Most of these abuses occur in the capital, where population density and crime rates are the highest. The States of Miranda, Zulia, Carabobo, Lara, Apure and Bolivar are also particularly affected.33

Started a few years ago, the increase in police and military presence contributes to the persistence of the phenomenon of torture. By late 2007, Venezuela had nearly 70,000 policemen against 40,000 in 1990 and 457 security agents per 100,000 inhabitants, whereas the average for so-called Southern countries stands at 350.19 In 2009, the General Police Council included 141 security agencies: 24 State police forces,20 110 municipal police forces, two national police forces (judicial and political), four units of the National Armed Forces, and a Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services (DISIP).21 At the same time, the Minister of Popular Power for the Interior and Justice, Tarek El Aissami, admitted that 20% of the crimes in Venezuela are committed by the police themselves.22

Torturers generally combine physical and psychological torture*, inflicted on the targeted person or on his relatives. The most frequent procedures consist of punches and kicks, throwing the victim down a flight of stairs, suffocation in plastic bags, electric shocks, food deprivation, stripping, death threats, and solitary confinement*.34 On 30 January 2011, a 16-year-old teenager, Francis Daniela Nez Martnez, and her father were arrested in Caracas by members of the CICPC and taken to the police station to answer questions regarding a firefight which had occurred the previous night near their home. The police officers interrogated them in adjoining rooms
74
75
and told Daniel Antonio Nez they would rape his daughter. When she heard the beatings to which her father was being subjected, she broke down and provide the desired information.35 These practices seek to obtain information or confessions; to supervise and repress prisoners; to intimidate and punish, particularly after complaints have been filed; to maintain political control, whether in sensitive areas or in the border regions, where the significant presence of foreigners may be deemed a threat by certain security forces.36 Police forces include both pro- and anti-Chvez officers, whose convictions interfere with their duties. Mairim Delgado, 29, was arrested in September 2009 in company of her fianc and two friends, all members of the ruling party. Accused of robbing police executive, she was then arrested by the DISIP and tortured for sixteen days by civil servants hostile to the Head of State, who kept calling her a Damned pro-Chvez! 37
to six years in jail) is imposed on the material or intellectual authors of attacks to human dignity, humiliations, torture, or physical and moral ill-treatment. But these provisions only consider victims who have been formally arrested. But the crime of torture per se does not exist yet. The numerous complaints show that the protections set forth in the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure are ineffective. Likewise, the Law on the Penitentiary Regime and the Regulation on Judicial Inmates does not guarantee the rules concerning prisoner interrogations and supervision. The country ratified the main international and regional treaties against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. Nevertheless, under the Presidency of Hugo Chvez, most visits of the United Nations Special Rapporteurs*40 were cancelled, and the periodic reports to the Committees were not filed or submitted very late.41 The Head of State publicly disqualifies the international system of human rights observation and protection, particularly the decisions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and Inter-American Court of Human Rights.42

Under Article 46 of the Constitution,38 No person shall be subjected to penalties, tortures, cruelty, inhuman or degrading treatment. Every victim of torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment effected or tolerated by agents of the State has the right to rehabilitation. [] Any public official who, by reason of his official position, inflicts mistreatment or physical or mental suffering on any person or instigates or tolerates such treatment, shall be punished in accordance with law. Article 49 also states that A confession shall be valid only if given without coercion of any kind. Nevertheless, Venezuela has yet to comply with Transitory Provision No. 4, which calls for legislation on the sanction of the torture, either through a special law or through a reform of the Criminal Code, in the year following the August 2002 investiture of the National Assembly. Nor has the latest Assembly, of January 2011, placed this issue on its agenda for 2011. The Criminal Code also prohibits torture: Any civil servant (tasked with) having the custody or (conduct) control of a person, whether detained or convicted, who commits arbitrary acts against the latter or subjects them to acts which are not authorized under applicable regulations shall be punished by a term of imprisonment ranging from fifteen days to twenty months.39 A heavier sentence (from three

Few human rights violation cases mobilize the system of administration of justice and result in a decision.43 The victims of the Caracazo44 are still waiting for judgments and compensation. Dossiers are most often lost in bureaucratic limbo and the desperate victims and families drop their claims. The authors of acts of torture are rarely convicted: between 2003 and 2007, the association Justice and Peace Support Network listed 146 cases for which the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic had neither closed the investigation nor presented any indictment.45 Due to a lack of a specific definition of torture, prosecutors of the Public Prosecutor's Office only present accusations for lesions resulting from abuse, but not for acts of torture per se.46 Still, in February 2009, three officers of the Aragua State police were sentenced to three years and nine months in jail for torture and ill-treatment.47 The media coverage afforded the affair, with the circulation on Internet and social networks of a video showing the police officers savagely beating two citizens, certainly influenced this verdict. Generally, torturers are merely transferred to another State or police force, or dismissed in the case of a serious and notorious complaint. Impunity prevails from the investigation to the presentation of cases before the courts. The CICPC botches initial investigations, delays experts reports requested by the prosecutors, and accuse the victims and their witnesses of being delinquents.
76
77
Worse, it is in charge of investigating its own agents. As for them, prosecutors show signs of a lack of initiative and of negligence in torture cases: oral and public hearings are delayed, evidence is rejected, the constitution of mixed tribunals is difficult to manage. In many cases, summons are not drawn up correctly, so that witnesses, experts or jurors are not informed of the hearings, while the indicted civil servants, the defence lawyers and sometimes even the prosecutors do not even take the trouble of showing up.48
[20] Venezuela is a federal Republic consisting of 23 States and one Federal District. Each State is ruled by a governor, elected by universal suffrage. [21] PROVEA, op. cit., p. 272. [22] IACHR, op. cit., p. 213. [23] Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Poder ciudadano, Defensora del Pueblo (Civic Power, Public Defender's Office), Informe Anual 2008 [2008 Annual Report], August 2009, 413 pages, p. 212, http://www.politicaspublicas.net/panel/biblioteca/doc_ view/221-defensoria-del-pueblo-venezuela-informe-anual-2008.raw?tmpl=component. [24] There were allegedly 454 known cases of kidnapping for ransom during the first semester 2009 (United Nations, Committee Against Torture, op. cit., p. 3). [25] PROVEA, op. cit., p. 476. [26] Red de Apoyo por la Justicia y la Paz, Informe sobre la Impunidad y la Administracin de la Justicia en Venezuela 2000-2009, p. 19 and 32. [27] The Immediate-Response Team of Penitentiary Guards (Equipo de Reaccin Inmediata de Custodios Penitenciarios, or ERICP) was after Hugo Chvez's declaration of a state of emergency in jails, 23 by November 2004.
[1] The last measures were approved before the January 2011 investiture of an Assembly which was less favourable to the president's party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela, or PSUV). [2] International Crisis Group (ICG). Venezuela: Hugo Chvez's revolution, Latin America Report No. 19, 22 February 2007, 41 pages, p. 11-12, http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/latin-america/venezuela/19_venezuela___hugo_chavezs_ revolution.ashx. [3] Human Rights Watch, World Report 2011: Venezuela, 24 January 2011, 668 pages, p. 269, http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/ files/reports/wr2011.pdf. [4] Ibidem, p. 370. In July 2010, President Chvez called on judges to inquire into the millions and millions of dollars allegedly paid the US Department of State to Venezuelan NGOs. [5] According to the Venezuelan Observatory of Violence (Observatorio Venezolano de Violencia, or OVV), in 2010, 17,600 people were murdered, an 11% increase against 2009. According to the Parliamentary Commission on Security and Defense [Comisin Permanente de Seguridad y Defensa], there were allegedly between 9 and 15 million illegal weapons circulating in the country in 2010. [6] Programa Venezolano de Educacin-Accin en Derechos Humanos (PROVEA) [Venezuelan Program of Action and Education in Human Rights], Situacin de los Derechos Humanos en Venezuela, Informe anual Octubre 2009 / Septiembre 2010 [Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela, Annual Report, October 2009 September 2010], 26 November 2010, 471 pages, p. 272, http://www.derechos.org.ve/proveaweb/informes-anuales/informe-anual-2010. [7] Red de Apoyo por la Justicia y la Paz [Justice and Peace Support Network], Tortura e impunidad, Informe sobre la Prctica de la Tortura en Venezuela, Ao 2006 [Torture and Impunity, Report on the Practice of Torture in Venezuela, Year 2006], March 2007, http://www.redapoyo.org.ve/images/pdf/02.pdf, 28 pages, pp. 5 and 7. [8] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela, 30 December 2009, 319 pages, p. 216-217, http://www.cidh.org/pdf%20files/VENEZUELA%202009%20ENG.pdf. [9] PROVEA, op. cit., p. 271 and 415. [10] Red de Apoyo por la Justicia y la Paz, Tortura e impunidad, Informe sobre la Prctica de la Tortura en Venezuela, 2003-2007 [Torture and Impunity, Report on the Practice of Torture in Venezuela, 2003-2007], May 2008, 64 pages, p. 45-46, http://www.redapoyo.org.ve/images/pdf/informe% 202003%20 -2007.pdf. [11] PROVEA, op. cit., p. 276; Red de Apoyo por la Justicia y la Paz, op. cit., p. 17. [12] Red de Apoyo por la Justicia y la Paz, op. cit., p. 20. [13] Ibid., p. 22. [14] Red de Apoyo por la Justicia y la Paz, Informe sobre la Impunidad y la Administracin de la Justicia en Venezuela 2000-2009 [Report on Impunity and the Administration of Justice in Venezuela 2000-2009], March 2010, 48 pages, p. 24, http://www.observatoriodejusticia.org/uploaded_pictures/10_d.pdf. [15] IACHR, op. cit., p. 241. [16] United Nations, Committee Against Torture, List of issues prior to the submission of the fourth periodic report the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, CAT/C/VEN/Q/4, 2 August 2010, 11 pages, p. 8, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/followup/ CAT.C.VEN.Q.4_en.pdf. [17] United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E. Mndez, A/HRC/16/52/Add.1, 1 March 2011, 575 pages, p. 555, http://daccess-dds-ny.one.org/ doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/114/90/PDF/G1111490.pdf?OpenElement. [18] United Nations, Committee Against Torture, op. cit., p. 6. [19] Red de Apoyo por la Justicia y la Paz, Guardia nacional 2000-2007 [National Guard 2000-2007], May 2008, 48 pages, p. 11, http://www.redapoyo.org.ve/images/stories/pdf/2009/mes02/informe_gn_01_oct.pdf.
[28] PROVEA, op. cit., p. 277. [29] PROVEA, op. cit., p. 279. [30] Committee Against Torture, op. cit., p. 4. [31] Red de Apoyo por la Justicia y la Paz, op. cit., p. 32. [32] Ibid., p. 33. [33] Ibid., p. 19. [34] IACHR, op. cit., p. 217. [35] World Organization Against Torture, Venezuela: Allegations of torture against a 16-year-old girl and her father in order to obtain statements in Caracas, 4 February 2011, http://www.omct.org/rights-of-the-child/urgent-interventions/venezuela/2011/02/ d21074/. [36] Red de Apoyo por la Justicia y la Paz, Informe sobre la Prctica de la Tortura en Venezuela, 2003-2007, p. 14. [37] PROVEA, op. cit., p. 277. [38] Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Constitution, 30 December 1999, http://www.gobiernoenlinea.ve/legislacion-view/ sharedfiles/ConstitucionRBV1999.pdf. [39] Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Criminal Code, 20 October 2000, Article 182, http://www.gobiernoenlinea.ve/docMgr/ sharedfiles/239.pdf. [40] Special Rapporteurs on Human Rights Defenders (February 2008), on freedom of opinion and expression (2003 and 2009), and on extrajudicial executions (2006 and 2008). [41] The last periodic report on torture dates back to 2002. [42] The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, Steadfast in Protest, Annual Report 2010, 13 September 2010, 532 pages, p. 212-213, http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/2010/OBS2009UK-full.pdf. [43] Red de Apoyo por la Justicia y la Paz, Informe sobre la Impunidad y la Administracin de la Justicia en Venezuela 2000-2009, p. 25-34. [44] These spontaneous demonstrations, which took place in Caracas on 28 February 1989 against the skyrocketing prices, triggered a severe military repression, the vila plan, which resulted in hundreds of dead, wounded and disappeared. [45] Red de Apoyo por la Justicia y la Paz, Informe sobre la Prctica de la Tortura en Venezuela, 2003-2007, p. 46. [46] PROVEA, op. cit., p. 275-276. [47] Public Prosecutor's Offfice, http://www.ministeriopublico.gob.ve/web/guest/ministerio-publico;jsessionid=BFB2870821 8E377C2F8163E2B18C01D0?p_p_id=62_INSTANCE_N0Rp&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_62_ INSTANCE_N0Rp_struts_action=%2Fjournal_articles%2Fview&_62_INSTANCE_N0Rp_groupId=10136&_62_INSTANCE_N0Rp_ articleId=111773&_62_INSTANCE_N0Rp_version=1.0. [48] Red de Apoyo por la Justicia y la Paz, Informe sobre la Impunidad y la Administracin de la Justicia en Venezuela 2000-2009, p. 27-28.
79
ASIA
India . Kazakhstan . Philippines . Thailand . Vietnam .
80
81
KAZAKHSTAN
astana 16.3 m
INTRODUCTION
Will the winds of rebellion blowing through the North Africa and the Near and Middle East expand to Asia? That is the fear that guided several of the continent's regimes during the first half of 2011. To avoid the spread of the Arab Spring popular uprisings and prevent any wave of protest, certain governments implemented heavy media and internet censorship while increasing the number of arrests. Directly influenced by the Arab revolutions, anonymous calls for a Jasmine Revolution were launched on Chinese websites in February 2011, demanding more freedom of expression and political reforms in the People's Republic. Demonstrations in various cities have resulted in the most severe campaign of repression over the last decade. Authorities have blocked social networks, prevented journalists from covering events, and deployed a large number of uniformed and plainclothes police officers who have detained or placed under house arrest several hundred people. Among them, human rights and democracy activists, bloggers and lawyers, were released after several days of disappearance, but others were sentenced to extremely harsh prison terms, particularly on the charge of inciting subversion. The arrest on 3 April 2011 of internationally renowned Chinese artist Ai Weiwei, a known critic of the authorities, has revealed Beijing's strong determination to silence civil society. In Central Asia, citizens have tried to follow the example of Tunisian and Egyptian protesters by exercising their right to freedom of assembly and expression. In Azerbaijan and Tajikistan, protesters organized peaceful rallies during the spring, notably through Facebook and Twitter. The Azerbaijanis demanded the resignation of President Ilham Aliyev, whose family has ruled the country for eighteen years, and protested against the corruption of power. This movement has ended in dozens of arrests based on trumped-up charges. These stirrings have not, however, taken over the entire region, where systematic political repression continues. In August, during a meeting of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, Uzbekistan, Russia and Tajikistan agreed on the need for the organization to serve as an effective barrier against any risk of revolutionary contagion within the post-Soviet territory.
INDIA
new dehli 1. 1 bn
VIETNAM
hanoi 86.9 m
THAILAND
bangkok 69.1 m
PHILIPPINES
manila 93.2 m
82
83
Whatever the motives for revolt or dissent, in 2011, many Asian governments continue to neutralize any form of criticism or protest by infringing fundamental rights. To this end, the use of torture remains widespread. For example, in Bangladesh, in the first half of 2011, numerous human rights defenders were violently assaulted by police forces members because of their activities. On 29 April 2011, F.M.A. Razzak, head of the Human Rights Development Centre, was kidnapped and beaten by some 30 men led by the brother of an army major. His attackers dug their fingers, as well as sticks and screwdrivers, into his eyes. They also squeezed his testicles and severely beat him until he lost consciousness. In Pakistan, Siddiq Eido, a member of the National Commission of Human Rights and a journalist, and Yousuf Nazar, affiliated with a student organization, were kidnapped in December 2010 in the province of Baluchistan by men wearing security forces uniforms. They had been working on cases of human rights violations. Their bodies were found in April 2011. Both men showed signs of torture and had been executed by a gunshot to the head. In Indonesia, political activists who peacefully campaign for the independence of Maluku and Papua provinces continue to be imprisoned and tortured. People fleeing their countries due to ethnic, religious or political persecution suffer from a lack of protection in many of the Asian States in which they have found refuge and are exposed to the risk of deportation to countries that practice torture. China, Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan systematically resort to cooperation and extradition agreements, signed under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) of which they are members, in order to violate the fundamental principle of non-refoulement* and expel refugees or asylum seekers to their countries of origin, despite the risks of abuse and torture they face there. In July 2011, Australia made an agreement with Malaysia to send 800 illegal immigrants of diverse origins, in exchange for the admission into Australian territory of 4,000 refugees located in Malaysia. The following month, this arrangement which was intensely criticized by human rights organizations, particularly due to the risks of abuse and torture for asylum seekers in Malaysia or third-party countries was declared illegal by the High Court of Melbourne. According to the judges, the Canberra authorities had no guarantee regarding either how these immigrants would be treated there or their future. Malaysia, which has not signed the UN conventions on the rights of refugees, recently expelled Burmese people to Thailand, a country infamous for regularly returning these persons by force to Myanmar. The investigations on and the prosecutions of the authors of grave human rights violations continue to be the exception in most countries. In Sri Lanka, impunity persists because of the collapse of the rule of law and the paralysis that besets the institutional and judicial systems. Over two years after the end of the conflict with the Tamil rebels, hundreds of people are still being held in detention camps without
charge or trial under emergency laws and the anti-terrorist law. A group of UNappointed experts published a damning report on the country in April 2011, denouncing war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated toward the end of the civil war in 2009. The Sri Lankan government continues to reject any responsibility for the atrocities committed during the hostilities, and maintains full impunity for those responsible. In Kyrgyzstan, following the interethnic violence that occurred in June 2010, the investigations and trials meant to assign responsibility were characterized by the use of confessions obtained under duress. The judges based their decisions on these declarations in order to hand out harsh sentences, and had systematically ignored allegations of torture brought by the accused parties. This conduct has hampered any effort to obtain justice, and further encourages the use of torture. When sanctions are imposed, they rarely reflect the gravity of the mistreatment committed by law enforcement officials. In Indonesia, in January 2011, a military court sentenced three soldiers who had abused Papuan villagers in May 2010 to prison terms of less than a year for insubordination, despite a video made by one of them which clearly showed them burning their victims genitals.
The phenomenon of torture persists in countries covered by ACAT-France 2010 report, especially Bangladesh, China, Uzbekistan and Sri Lanka. In Bangladesh, due to the lack of political will, Parliament has not yet considered the Torture and Custodial Death [Prohibition] Bill introduced in 2009.
84
85
INDIA
PRACTICE OF TORTURE
Public officials and members of the various armed opposition groups make a widespread and continuous use of torture and ill-treatment. It is, however, extremely difficult to obtain accurate information or reliable figures. According to official reports, 127 individuals died in police custody between 2008 and 2009. This number undoubtedly does not reflect the true situation, since certain States do not report deaths under such circumstances.
Victims BACKGROUND
Despite claiming the title of the world's largest democracy where 714 million voters out of 1.1 billion inhabitants were asked to cast their votes in the 2009 legislative elections the Federal Republic of India tends to tolerate numerous human rights violations, particularly in the context of the fight against terrorism carried out within its borders. The country faces tensions and long-standing conflicts in some of its 28 States: anti-Muslim and anti-Christian violence by Hindu extremists, especially in the State of Orissa; attacks by armed Maoist guerilla groups called Naxalites, which are very active in underprivileged rural areas; separatist movements in the States of Nagaland and Assam; and strikes by various Islamist groups, some of which are struggling for the secession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian part of Kashmir with a Muslim majority (at the centre of the territorial conflict between India and Pakistan since 1947). To protect their citizens and re-establish public order, the Indian authorities have adopted or strengthened emergency legislations that are contrary to international law, granting law enforcement officials special powers and fostering abuse: extrajudicial executions, arbitrary arrests and detentions, excessive use of force, etc. These laws, like those related to national security (the National Security Act, or NSA) and public security (the Public Safety Act, or PSA), in force in Jammu and Kashmir, allow for the extended detention of suspects without arrest warrant, charge, and judicial review. The vast majority of torture victims are part of the lower castes of Indian society, specifically to Untouchables, now known as Dalits, to indigenous tribes and communities (Adivasis), and to religious minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians. Refugees, asylum seekers, women and children also figure among the most vulnerable groups. On 11 February 2011, two friends, both 23-year-old electricians, Mr Sanal and Mr Jenson, were arrested by the Anthikadu police in the State of Kerala.1 The former belongs to a low caste, and both come from poor families. Beaten at the time of their arrest, they were dragged into the police car and once more hit inside the vehicle before being taken to the police station where, yet again, they were tortured. They were forced to undress and interrogated repeatedly for twentyfour hours, beaten each time on different parts of their bodies, and denied food or water throughout their detention. After their release, Mr Sanal vomited blood and was urgently hospitalized by his relatives. Mr Jenson also had to go to the hospital to have his wounds taken care of. 69% of juveniles surveyed in 2007 within a study conducted by the Ministry of Women and Child Development said they had been subjected to physical violence, with 62% stating this had been meted out at school, as corporal punishment.2 For example, in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the director of a primary school punished eleven students by burning their hands, neck and legs.3 Children and adolescents are also mistreated in police stations and juvenile detention centres, such as the one in the city of Brahmapur in the State of Orissa, where sexual abuse, acts of violence and food deprivation were denounced in October 2010 after the attempted escape of ten young prisoners the preceding September.4
86
87
In areas of unrest, alleged insurgents and civilians suspected whether by State agents of having ties to these rebellious movements or by opposition groups of informing or helping public officials risk being tortured. After the terrorist attacks on the Indian territory over the last few years, law enforcement agents carried out mass arrests of Muslim citizens suspected of terrorism, seen as anti-nationals and subjected to assaults, brutalities or abuses.

The most frequently used techniques are beatings, particularly with lathis (long bamboo canes); suspension from the ceiling by the hands, feet, of by the arms tied behind the back; administration of electrical charges all over the body; crushing of limbs with a ghotna a thick, large wooden bar typically used to grind grain which is placed on the body of the victim and upon which the torturers sit before rolling it; prolonged spreading of the legs, called the T, forcing person into a 180-degree split and tearing the muscles a method frequently reported in Kashmir and during interrogations of individuals suspected of terrorism. Rapes and sexual assaults, particularly against Dalit or Adivasi women, are also common. Members of armed opposition groups, among other forms of torture, mutilate the bodies of their victims and cut out their tongues. Ill-treatment and acts of torture are usually used to extract confessions and information during police investigations, in anti-terrorist operations, or in situations of armed conflict in the north-eastern and Jammu and Kashmir States. They also provide police with a way to extort money. A 15-year-old boy was detained and tortured at a police station in Kotwali (in the State of Uttar Pradesh) from 29 July to 6 August 2009, in order to get his father to pay a bribe of 30,000 rupees6 (approximately 600 dollars). Torture is also about punishing and humiliating people because of their caste, geographic or ethnic origin, religious beliefs, or gender. In some prisons, particularly in the State of Punjab, staff members have branded Dalits with words synonymous with lower caste using hot metal utensils. Torture is also used to terrorize populations, particularly in areas of insurgency. Rebels resort to it as a form of reprisal against Indian security forces, anti-Maoist militias, or civilians suspected of not belonging to their faction.

Acts of torture and ill-treatment are attributable to police officers, soldiers and members of the security forces, such as the Border Security Force (BSF), the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), the Forest Guards and the Customs and Central Excise, as well as to prison staff. Between 2008 and 2009, the National Human Rights Commission recorded 1,596 complaints from inmates concerning cases of torture. On 27 July 2010, in the State of Assam, Central Reserve Police Force tortured Fariz Uddin Barbhuiya, 66 years old, his wife and their child in their home.5 Mr Fariz, retired from this police force, had filed a complaint against the local battalion for a breach of contract. He had to be hospitalized because of his injuries, and wanted to sue his attackers. The officer in charge of the investigation suggested him to withdraw his complaint to avoid further abuse. In areas of conflict and insurgency, members of the military and paramilitary forces and of the various armed opposition groups, mainly Maoist rebels, are also guilty of abuses. The same is true for activists of rebel movements with religious, political or ethnic overtones, such as the National Liberation Front of Tripura, the United Liberation Front of Asom, the People's Liberation Army and the Manipur People's Liberation Front. In the States of Chhattisgarh and Orissa, the Maoist guerilla strongholds, armed antiNaxalite village militias supported by local governments and sometimes backed by local security forces such as Salwa Judum (campaign for peace or purification hunt in the Gondi dialect) or the Koya commandos, from the name of an Indian subtribe, also practice torture and ill-treatment. The resort to abuse is endemic in places of deprivation of liberty: police cells, military barracks, security forces quarters and prisons. The media has also revealed the existence of secret interrogation and detention centres throughout the country, reserved for suspected terrorists.

The country has signed the United Nations Convention against Torture in 1997, but it has not yet ratified the text nor its Optional Protocol. The Indian government ever reluctant to cooperate with UN experts has never invited the Special Rapporteur* on Torture, despite his repeated requests.
88
89
Indian law only condemns torture committed in an armed conflict7 but does not explicitly prohibit this practice. Neither the Indian Constitution nor the Criminal Code contains provisions forbidding or defining torture. The Indian Supreme Court has, however, interpreted Article 21 of the Constitution8 as encompassing such a prohibition.9 The Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure provide guarantees against forced confessions under torture, without explicitly condemning this investigation technique. The Criminal Code outlaws certain acts that might constitute torture, such as battery, unlawful detention in order to obtain information or confessions, a State agent's violation of the law with the intent of committing an assault on a person, murder, negligent homicide, and rape. Persons belonging to vulnerable groups, such as women, children, Dalits or indigenous communities, benefit from special laws that protect their dignity and integrity.10 A law prohibiting corporal punishment in schools came into effect in 2010, the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act. The Law on Juvenile Justice provides children with protection against abuse. In 2010, the Parliament started considering a bill, the Prevention of Torture Bill, meant to punish the crime of torture. The version adopted by the Lower House (Lok Sabha) in May 2010 was strongly criticized by Indian civil society, which decried its loopholes and provisions contrary to international law. Among other points, the text of the bill restricted the definition of torture exclusively to methods that cause physical suffering, set a six-month deadline for victims to file complaints, and preserved the near-total immunity granted to law enforcement officials who may have been guilty of acts of torture. At the time of writing of this report, a special committee of the Upper House of the Parliament (Rajya Sabha) had submitted amendments to the Indian government for review.
authorizations, even when the investigation has indisputably revealed acts of torture. In areas of unrest (the States of Jammu and Kashmir and of the north-east), where the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) is in effect, the military benefits from additional protection against prosecution. Under this text, no member of the armed forces may be subjected to any prosecution, trial or other form of judicial proceedings for acts committed or allegedly committed while carrying out their missions without the express authorization of the federal government. Still, some Indian courts have ruled in several decisions that human rights violations deliberately perpetrated by representatives of the State could not be considered acts committed in an official capacity, and that government authorization was unnecessary to prosecute the suspected perpetrators.11 Nonetheless, prosecutions remain rare. Investigations concerning deaths while in custody, while mandatory under Article 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are only launched when there is a public scandal. There is currently no mechanism dedicated to impartially and effectively monitoring the actions of law enforcement officials. In the case of abuse by police officers, the investigation is handed over to agents of the same body or to an agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation, mostly composed of local police officers on secondment. The close proximity of the accused to the investigators hinders the required impartiality. Several cases have also revealed that senior officials had covered up instances of torture. Victims or families who want to have their torturers prosecuted have to overcome numerous obstacles: autopsy reports and police reports are falsified or classified as confidential on a regular basis, intimidation and threats to prevent complaints from being filed or testimony regarding torture suffered being offered, and the slow pace of proceedings in a clogged and largely corrupt judicial system. The law does not provide for any compensation for victims, but the courts do grant it in some cases. In September 2010, the High Court of Punjab ordered the local government to pay an indemnity of 20,000 rupees (some 400 dollars) to plaintiffs for illegal detention and torture.

The lack of political will and of an appropriate legislation fosters the continued practice of torture and the corresponding impunity. A certain number of legal provisions make it difficult, if not impossible, to criminally prosecute those perpetrators of torture holding official positions. Members of the police, the armed forces and the paramilitary forces are protected by Article 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that no court may hear cases of offences committed by public officials in the exercise of their duties without the express authorization of the federal government. However, the authorities rarely deliver such
90
[1] Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), INDIA: Two persons tortured in Kerala for no reason, 21 February 2011, http://www.humanrights.asia/news/urgent-appeals/AHRC-UAC-039-2011. [2] Plan International, The Campaign to End Violence in Schools, October 2010, 70 pages, p. 9, http://plan-international.org/learnwithoutfear/files/india-the-campaign-to-end-violence-in-schools-english. [3] AHRC. States Round up, Andhra Pradesh India, Human Rights Report Quarterly, Issue-01, July to September 2010, http://www.achrweb.org/ihrrq/issue1/andhra_pradesh.html#_ftnref36. [4] Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR), Orissa: Juveniles fleeing from torture and abuse, 6 October 2010, 8 pages, http://www.achrweb.org/reports/india/JJ-Orissa-012010.pdf. [5] AHRC, INDIA: An old man assaulted by the Central Reserve Police in Assam, 8 April 2011, http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ urgent-appeals/AHRC-UAC-074-2011. [6] ACHR, Torture in India 2010, April 2010, 94 pages, p. 30, http://www.achrweb.org/reports/india/torture2010.pdf. [7] Art. 3 of the 1960 Geneva Conventions Act, http://vlex.in/vid/the-geneva-conventions-act-29630877. [8] Constitution of India, Part III, Art. 21: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, http://india.gov.in/govt/documents/english/coi_part_full.pdf. [9] See the case law established by the judgements Sunil Batra etc. Vs. Delhi Administration and Others. etc., 30 August 1978, http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs.aspx, and Francis Coralie Mullin Vs. the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Others., 13 January 1981. [10] See, for example, The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, 11 September 1989, http://socialjustice.nic.in/poa-act.php, and The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, 31 March 1995, http://socialjustice.nic.in/poa-rule.php. [11] See, for instance, the Supreme Court judgement Choudhury Parveen Sultana Vs. State of West Bengal and other respondents, 7 January 2009, http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs.aspx.
92
93
KAZAKHSTAN
serve to conceal common violations.5 The strategic location of the country, whose sub-soil teems with hydrocarbons and uranium, ensures its position as a major partner for Russia, China and the western powers.
PRACTICE OF TORTURE
Security forces-inflicted ill-treatment and torture remain a persistent problem in Kazakhstan. In July 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Committee* denounced increased reports of torture.6 The authorities themselves recognise the generalised recourse to ill-treatment and acts of torture during interrogations and criminal investigations.7
BACKGROUND
This former Soviet Socialist Republic is ruled by the corrupt, authoritarian regime of Nursultan Nazarbayev, the President since independence was declared in 1991. Nazarbayev was re-elected in April 2011 with 95.5% of the votes cast in an early election that was boycotted by the opposition and deemed undemocratic by observers of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). His party, Nur Otan (Fatherland's Light), holds all seats in Parliament. Members of the Parliament rubberstamped an amendment to the Constitution authorising him to run for the position of Head of State as many times as he might wish to in June 2007 and proclaimed him Elbassy (Leader of the Nation) in May 2010. This position entitles him to decide the country's major political orientations regardless of his functions, and grants him perpetual immunity from prosecution. Kazakh authorities resort to financial, administrative and legal mechanisms to restrict the freedom of speech of the opposition, independent media, associations and parties and censor the Internet. As for the 5,000 NGOs the authorities refer to,1 the overwhelming majority of them are State-controlled. Despite the limitations placed on the right to assemble, subject to prior approval and granted only to pro-government groups,2 social movements have been on the rise over the last few months, in the gas and oil sectors. Indeed, the legal representative of a oil workers union was sentenced, on 9 August 2011, to six years imprisonment for having incited employees to strike, an event deemed illegal.3 In 2009, before taking over the post of OSCE Chairperson-in-Office the following year, Kazakhstan launched a National Human Rights Action Plan4 and created a mechanism allowing for the independent oversight of places of detention. According to Kazakh NGOs, these announcements, which have produced very little effect, only
Victims
Although there have been reported cases of abuses against political opponents,8 it would appear that these practices most often concern common law prisoners. According to the European Court of Human Rights, all suspects find themselves seriously at risk of mistreatment and torture, sometimes for no specific reason, while in police stations and jails.9 On 8 June 2009, in a street of the village of Chelgashy, Petrenko Anatoly was hit by three policemen in the stomach, groin and face before being forced to board their car; he was then beaten again and, unconscious, was brought to the station. When he woke up, he was questioned regarding his involvement in the death of one of his friends, who froze to death and whose body was later found in a landfill; he answered that he had killed no one. He was once again violently beaten to confess the crime; he then felt someone remove his trousers and insert an object in his anus. He fainted from the pain and was then taken back home. Twelve hours later, he was taken to a hospital, where he underwent several operations, but he remains disabled to this day.10 On 20 March 2010, at the LA-155/8 high-security correctional facility near Almaty, guards forcibly shaved the head of prisoner Sagatov Zhandos, 27 years old, and forced him to strip naked. They insulted him, humiliated him, and threatened to rape him. Then, they took him to the bathroom, where they bludgeoned him with the help of other inmates. They also put his head in the toilet bowl while repeatedly flushing the toilet, subjected him to waterboarding*, and raped him several times with sticks. To hide the scars, prison doctors waited before transporting Sagatov Zhandos to the hospital, despite his critical condition.11 In addition, on 24 June 2011, inmates in the
94
95
courtyard of a prison in Granitny, a city in the north of the country, received violent blows with a club from the guards. This incident of punishment was the result of an attempted riot.12 Women and children suspected or accused of offences are not spared these brutalities. Women are regularly threatened with or victims of sexual abuse by police officers and prison staff. As for juveniles, they are abused, even tortured, not only during criminal investigations, but also in schools particularly those for difficult or disabled children and private schools , in orphanages, and in juvenile detention centres.13 Under the pretext of fighting terrorism and of defending national security, individuals believed to be members of Islamic organizations or parties that are prohibited or not registered in Kazakhstan, religious minorities and there are many in this multifaith country and asylum seekers from neighboring States, particularly China and Uzbekistan,14 are also targets of torture.

According the testimonies of victims, ill-treatment and torture are carried out by all the staff of security forces and places of deprivation of liberty. When the National Human Rights Action Plan was implemented, the government had referred to the lack of knowledge on the part of the law enforcement officers of national criminal procedures and Kazakhstan's international obligations. The National Security Committee (Komitet Natsionalno Bezopasnosti, or KNB), responsible for homeland security and border service and led by the military, commits many acts of torture, particularly against religious and ethnic minorities, under the guise of fighting terrorism.21 Some victims have reported abuse in the street or during their transfer to official or secret places of detention.22 Under domestic law, the police must register any detention within three hours following the arrest. Only this official procedure allows the detainee to receive medical and legal assistance and enjoy family visits. In practice, officers routinely exceed this period and practice secret detentions* that are conducive to ill-treatment. Police or KNB pre-trial detention centres (sledstvennyi isolator, or SIZO) and police holding facilities (izolator vremenni soderzhanie, or IVS) are the main sites of torture. In prisons, many suspicious deaths occur, with the bodies showing, for example, fractures; many such deaths are disguised as suicides or illness by prison authorities. Thus, according to the official autopsy, the death of Dmitry Rakishev, 21 years old, on 8 May 2011 in the pre-trial detention centre of the town of Stepnogorsk, was the result of pneumonia and tuberculosis, and his two broken ribs were caused by an accidental fall. According to his father, however, the young man's body showed signs of torture.23 Poor prison conditions (overcrowding, lack of food and appropriate medical care, particularly for HIV-positive inmates) in the country's 94 prisons and SIZO have triggered numerous riots since 201024 and, in several cases, led to self-mutilation among prisoners.25 At least 147 of them purposely hurt themselves in 2010.26 To curb this violence, the government decided, in July 2011, to hand back the administration of the prison system to the Ministry of the Interior, which is controlled by the army, to the dismay of human rights defenders.27 The goal of the transfer from the latter to a civil authority, the Department of Justice, was precisely to humanize the prison system. Furthermore, public monitoring commissions in charge of inspecting places of deprivation of liberty have limited powers. They were only able to visit the KNB's pre-trial detention centres on four occasions in 2009 and eight times in 2010, and always with prior notice.
Dangerous Returns
The Refugee Protection Act entered into force on 1 January 2010 stipulates the principle of non-refoulement*, accessibility and transparency in asylum procedures, and the right to appeal. It also established a national procedure for determining refugee status, overseen by a national Central Committee rather than by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as was previously the case. This law attracted strong criticism for its loopholes and for certain provisions contrary to international law, which offer neither effective protection for people seeking asylum15 nor effective remedies.16 Under this law and their international commitments, the authorities must refrain from deporting any person who risks being subjected to torture in his country of origin. They have, nonetheless, already extradited several asylum seekers in order to maintain good diplomatic relations with neighboring States. For instance, on 9 June 2011, 28 victims of religious persecution in Uzbekistan were forcibly returned to this country, despite the dangers they faced.17 The majority of them had been granted refugee status by the UNHCR before 2010 but saw this status revoked after the coming into force of the Kazakh law, and did not benefit from regular access to national courts. Furthermore, this extradition violated the provisional measures pronounced by the UN Committee against Torture* (CAT) which, on three occasions,18 had asked Kazakhstan not to send these individuals before their complaint had been reviewed.19 Four men, arrested at the same time as these 28 people in June 2010 at the request of the Uzbek government, had already been extradited in the fall of 2010.20
96
97

Victims give accounts of beatings, with hands and feet, sometimes with sand-filled plastic bottles and truncheons; of sexual violence, the rapes being committed by fellow inmates or by prison guards; of suffocations with plastic bags and gas masks; of simulated drownings; and of threats, insults and humiliation.28 Prior to a conviction, the use of torture is generally intended to extract confessions for common crimes and misdemeanors, even petty, to minimize investigation time. This practice is encouraged by the police's annual performance review, which is based on the number of cases resolved; by the lack of proper training; and by the lack of medical or legal equipment that would permit thorough investigations to be conducted. Furthermore, physical and psychological torture* used while in detention serves to punish, humiliate, and even break, hardcore inmates.29
Article 923 of the Civil Code on civil interests related to damages resulting from illegal acts committed by an agent of the State.

In 2010, 263 complaints for torture were recorded by Kazakh human rights organizations, against 286 in 2009.34 According to official statistics, only one agent of the State was indicted in 2009, under the old article of the Penal Code relating to torture, and four people were sentenced in 2010.35 In January 2011, the very first trial for acts of torture in prison was initiated. Five prison officers and four inmates were tried for abuse inflicted in March 2010 upon prisoner Sagatov Zhandos (see the Victims Section).36 Apart from these few cases, impunity for torturers prevails in Kazakhstan. The rate of investigation into allegations of torture remains very low in practice. Officially, by late 2010, the authorities had launched investigations in 48 cases. Complaints are first processed by the Internal Security Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, an entity the very government admits lacks the independence required to conduct an effective investigation.37 Generally, the confidential review they perform ends with a mention of absence of conclusive proof, which prevents the opening of a criminal investigation. Complainants have no way of presenting evidence, calling witnesses, or getting access to the dossier in order to challenge the decision in court. Regularly threatened and intimidated, victims are forced to withdraw their complaint for fear of being further tortured.38 Despite several reforms, the judiciary in Kazakhstan remains heavily dependent on the executive branch, the appointment and removal of judges, for example, being decided by the President of the Republic.39 In violation of a decree of the Supreme Court of 28 December 2009, which sets normative standards for the prevention of torture and prohibits the admissibility in courts of confessions obtained under duress, judges continue to take them into account,40 believing that these allegations are often raised to avoid a conviction. Under Kazakh procedure, it is up to the victim to prove he was tortured if the judges are to agree to reject the evidence submitted by the prosecution. As most accused persons are held in custody during the investigation and hearings, the burden of proof is unreasonable and contrary to international law.41 Other mechanisms for investigating human rights violations do exist, but they are neither effective nor independent. The Presidential Commission of Human Rights, formed by members designated by the Head of State, only releases recommendations on the complaints it has received. Similarly, the Office of the Ombudsman appointed

Kazakhstan is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and to the Convention against Torture* (CAT). In 2008, it ratified its Optional Protocol and also recognized the mechanism allowing for complaints to be filed by a State or an individual before the Committee against Torture. Article 17 of the 1995 Constitution condemns the use of torture and all forms of cruel and degrading treatment. The Criminal Code, as amended in January 2011,30 includes a new article (141-1) concerning torture, which improves the definition of the offence.31 It now takes into account acts committed by any individual intervening at the request or with the explicit or tacit consent of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. However, it contains a note that specifies that physical or mental suffering resulting from legitimate actions, a vague and undefined concept, does not constitute torture; what is more, these amendments have not increased the scale of the sentences, which provides for a maximum of ten years imprisonment in cases resulting in the death of the victim.32 In practice, illegal investigation and detention methods are only prosecuted under Article 308 of the Criminal Code, which outlaws the abuse of power by public officials.33 Moreover, no financial reparation is provided for victims of torture. They do not appear in the list of persons eligible for compensation or for damages and interests established by Article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor are they mentioned in
98
99
by Nursultan Nazarbayev cannot consider cases implicating senior officials of the country, such as the President, members of the government or of Parliament, nor may it initiate legal proceedings. These bodies, subjected to pressure from the executive branch, are ordered not to interfere with the work of the police and of justice.42
[24] Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR), Kazak Prison Riots Highlight Poor Conditions, 3 December 2010, http://iwpr.net/ report-news/kazak-prison-riots-highlight-poor-conditions; Kazakh Officials Confirm Inmate Protest, Deny Troops Sent In, Radio Free Europe, 20 June 2011, http://www.rferl.org/content/kazakh_officials_confirm_inmate_protest_deny_troops_sent_ in/24240876.html. [25] Self-Mutilation cases reported in Kazakh prison, Radio Free Europe, 1 March 2011, http://www.rferl.org/content/kazakh_ prison/2324867.html; Another Kazakh Inmate Maims Himself, Radio Free Europe, 15 March 2011, http://www.rferl.org/content/ kazakh_jail_self_mutilation/2338656.html and More Self-Mutilation Cases At Kazakh Prison, Radio Free Europe, 28 March 2011, http://www.rferl.org/content/more_selfmutilation_kazakh_prisoners/3539766.html. [26] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, op. cit., p. 5. [27] Freedom House, Transfer to Military Control Moves Kazakhstan Penal System in Wrong Direction, 1 August 2011, http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=1474; Kazakh Rights Defenders Slam Presidential Decree On Prisons, Radio Free Europe, 17 August 2011, http://www.rferl.org/content/kazakhstan_prisons_human_rights/24292283.html.
[1] Freedom House, Nations in transit 2011, Kazakhstan, p. 272, http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/nit/2011/NIT-2011Kazakhstan.pdf. [2] Ibidem, p. 265. [3] Human Rights Watch, Kazakhstan: Criminal Trial of Labor Lawyer, 5 August 2011, http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/08/05/ kazakhstan-criminal-trial-labor-lawyer. [4] National Human Rights Action Plan of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2009-2012, May 2009, 123 pages, http://www2.ohchr.org/ english/issues/plan_actions/docs/Kazakhstan2009-2012.pdf. [5] Kazakhstan NGO report to the UN Human Rights Committee on implementation of the international covenant on civil and political rights by the Republic of Kazakhstan, June 2011, 48 pages, p. 9 and 13, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/NGO's / Almaty_report_HRC102.pdf. [6] United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Kazakhstan, CCPR/C/KAZ/ CO/1, 21 July 2011, 14. [7] National Human Rights Action Plan of the Republic Of Kazakhstan 2009-2012, p. 102. [8] Harriman Institut, Kazakh Torture Victim and Activist Speaks Out Against Torture at the Harriman Institut, 14 June 2011, http://www.harrimaninstitute.org/MEDIA/01997.pdf. [9] European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Case of Kaboulov v. Ukraine (Application no. 41015/04), 19 November 2009, 112, http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=858405&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table =F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649. [10] Kazakhstan NGO report to the UN Human Rights Committee on implementation of the international covenant on civil and political rights by the Republic of Kazakhstan, Attachment 1, 5 pages, p. 3-5, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/NGO's / Almaty_report_HRC102_Annex1.pdf. [11] Ibid. p. 1. [12] Relatives of Kazakh Convicts Report Beatings, Radio Free Europe, 28 June 2011, http://www.rferl.org/content/relatives_ kazakh_convicts_being_beaten/24248608.html. [13] Kazakhstan NGO report to the UN Human Rights Committee on implementation of the international covenant on civil and political rights by the Republic of Kazakhstan, p. 35; U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2010 Human Rights Report: Kazakhstan, 8 April 2011, 41 pages, p. 32, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160465.pdf. [14] Amnesty International, Kazakhstan: No effective safeguards against torture, 2010, 33 pages, p. 14, http://www.amnesty.org/en/ library/info/EUR57/001/2010. [15] op. cit., 19. [16] Ibid.; Kazakhstan NGO report to the UN Human Rights Committee on implementation of the international covenant on civil and political rights by the Republic of Kazakhstan, 7.3. [17] ACAT-France, Kazakhstan : Extradition illgale douzbeks vers la torture [Kazakhstan: Illegal extradition of Uzbeks to torture], 10 June 2011, http://www.acatfrance.fr/communiques_presse.php?id=200. [18] United Nations, Committee against Torture, Communication* No. 444/2010, provisional measures decreed on 24 December 2010, renewed on 6 May and 9 June 2011. [19] ACAT-France submitted a communication (No. 444/2010) to the United Nations Committee Against Torture on 24 December 2010, based on Article 3 of the Convention (principle of non-refoulement) in favor of 29 Uzbek and Tajik complainants subject to extradition to Uzbekistan. The process is pending before the Committee. [20] ACAT-France, Kazakhstan : Risque de renvoi imminent vers la torture [Kazakhstan: Imminent risk of return to torture], Urgent appeal, 16 May 2011, http://www.acatfrance.fr/medias/appel_urgent/doc/AU_20_Kazakhstan-_France_Libye.pdf. [21] Amnesty International, op. cit., p. 6. [22] Idem. [23] Kazakh crime suspect dies in unclear circumstances, Radio Free Europe, 12 May 2011, http://www.rferl.org/content/ kazakh_suspect_dies_in_unclear_circumstances/24099536.html.
[28] United Nations, Human Rights Council, 13th session, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, Mission to Kazakhstan, A/HRC/13/39/Add.3, 16 December 2009, 51 pages, p. 2 and 8, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13specialsession/A.HRC.13.39.Add.3_en.pdf. [29] Ibid. p. 8. [30] Law On Introducing Amendments to Some Laws of Kazakhstan for the Further Humanization of Criminal Legislation and the Strengthening of Legal Safeguards in the Criminal Process", 18 January 2011. [31] Ibid., article 141-1: Torture 1. The intentional infliction of physical and/or mental suffering that is perpetrated by an investigator, a person who is conducting an interrogation, or another official, either as a result of their instigation, or as a result of tacit agreement with another person, or as a result of their acquiescence, in order to obtain information or a confession from the individual who is being tortured, or from a third party, or to punish him or her for an action that they have committed, or that they are suspected of having committed, as well as to intimidate or to coerce him or her, or a third party, or for any reason based on discrimination of any nature, shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of two hundred to five hundred monthly calculation indices, or in the amount of the wage or other income of a convicted offender for a period of two to five months, or by the forfeiture of the right to hold certain positions for a period of up to three years, or by supervised release for a period of up to five years, or by imprisonment for this same period of time. 2. This same act, perpetrated: a) by a group of individuals, or by a group of individuals in previous concert; b) repeatedly; c) with the infliction of an intermediate degree of harm to health, or; d) with respect to a woman who the perpetrator knows beforehand is pregnant or is a juvenile, shall be punishable by imprisonment for a period of up to seven years, accompanied the forfeiture of the right to hold certain positions or to engage in certain activities for a period of up to three years. 3. This same act, which entails the infliction of a severe degree of harm to health, or by negligence, the death of a victim, shall be punishable by imprisonment for a period of five to ten years, accompanied by the forfeiture of the right to hold certain positions or to engage in certain activities for a period of up to three years. Note. Physical or mental suffering that is inflicted as a result of the lawful actions of officials shall not be regarded as torture. [32] United Nations, Human Rights Committee, op. cit., 14. [33] Coalition of Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) Against Torture, 2010 Report, 7 April 2011, 12 pages, p. 3, http://www.bureau.kz/news/download/175.pdf. [34] Ibid. p. 1. [35] Id. [36] IWPR, Unprecedented Torture Trial in Kazakstan, 15 February 2011, http://iwpr.net/report-news/unprecedented-torture-trialkazakstan. [37] National Human Rights Action Plan of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2009-2012, p. 103. [38] Kazakhstan NGO report to the UN Human Rights Committee on implementation of the international covenant on civil and political rights by the Republic of Kazakhstan, p. 9-12. [39] Freedom House, op. cit., p. 277. [40] United Nations, Human Rights Committee, op. cit., 22. [41] United Nations, Human Rights Council, op. cit., p. 51. [42] Freedom House, op. cit., p. 278-279.
100
101
PHILIPPINES
PRACTICE OF TORTURE
Despite the enactment of a law against torture in November 2009, the phenomenon remains frequent. The resort to ill-treatment and acts of torture occurs as part of the authorities fight against terrorism. The excessive use of force on suspects in custody and detainees in criminal cases also persists in the country.5 Between November 2009 and June 2011, the national NGO Task Force Detainees of the Philippines documented 42 cases of torture involving 64 individuals.6 The Commission on Human Rights, an independent body in charge of the preliminary investigations, worked on 22 cases of allegations of torture in 2010, involving 93 victims and implicating both the police and army.7
BACKGROUND
Since the fall of Ferdinand Marcos's military dictatorship in 1986, the archipelago of the Philippines has experienced a democratic regime, despite multiple attempted coups, depositions and territorial disputes. Confronted with a failing governmental apparatus, marked by arbitrariness and chronic corruption, particularly in the judicial1 and police systems, the country has an active civil society and a vibrant press.2 However, at least 10 journalists were murdered between January 2010 and August 2011.3 Over the past decade, specifically under the presidency of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (2001-2010), the Philippines was the scene of 1,206 extrajudicial executions and 206 forced disappearances*,4 committed by the military, police and paramilitary in the context of counter-insurgency operations. For almost fifty years, the country has been forced to deal with rebellions by armed groups, such as the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, or MILF (a movement created in 1977, struggling for the creation of a Muslim State consisting of Indonesia, Malaysia and the South of the Philippines), and the New People's Army, or NPA (the armed wing of the Communist Party, formed in 1969), in addition to attacks by the Islamist terrorist organization Abu Sayyaf, whose demands are those of the MILF. These movements claim responsibility for the murders of political representatives as well as civilians, bombings, and kidnappings for ransom. Elected President of the Republic on 10 May 2010, Benigno Simeon Aquino III has made the improvement of the human rights situation one of the priorities of his mandate. He has yet inherited homeland security problems that served and still serve as a pretext for abuses perpetrated by the security forces.
Victims
Individuals suspected of belonging to rebel groups or sympathizing with these movements are often mistreated and tortured at the time of their arrest and during their detention.8 Thus, on 8 May 2011, Malik Daggung Abdurahman, a 27-year-old Muslim Moro and resident of Manila, was kidnapped without explanation or warrant by four men in civilian clothes, and then brought, with the eyes blindfolded, to an unknown location. During an interrogation, his captors forced him to admit that his name was Sahirun an alleged member of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front responsible for an attack on Philippine soldiers that resulted in 14 deaths in 2007 , but he swore he was not that person. Transferred that same day to the detention centre of the Regional Police Intelligence Operation Unit, he was forced to answer the same question and continued denying it. Despite his protests, he was photographed with the name Sahirun tagged on the picture, and then abused until dawn. Specifically, he was beaten in the head with stones and subjected to simulated drowning. Three days later, he was allowed to receive visits from family and on 16 May 2011, he was examined by the staff of the forensic centre of the Commission on Human Rights, which called for an investigation into these acts of torture. On 20 May 2011, Malik Daggung was taken to the prison of the province of Basilan, where he remains detained.9 In February 2010, 43 health workers accused of possessing weapons and explosives and of being members of the NPA were illegally arrested by policemen and soldiers in Morong, a city located in the outskirts of the capital. Later taken to the premises of the military brigade involved in their arrest, they were interrogated for thirtysix hours, handcuffed, blindfolded, and deprived of any contact with the outside world. Many of them reported ill-treatment and torture during the interrogations. Some
102
103
were electrocuted and subjected to sleep deprivation.10 This group, known as the Morong 43, was kept in detention for ten months. Citizens arrested for ordinary offences can also be the subject of police violence. The case of Darius Evangelista has become a centre of media attention. Suspected of theft, arrested in March 2010 and held in a police station in Manila, he was whipped and beaten by a plainclothes agent in front of uniformed officers during a torture session filmed on a cell phone; the film was subsequently released by the Philippine media in August 2010. Since his arrest, which does not appear in police records, he has disappeared.11 Journalists, defenders of human and indigenous rights, union and rural activists, are also harassed and assaulted. Unaccompanied juveniles (street children, vagrants, drug addicts), as well as young people coming from poor and marginalized areas, are particularly exposed to illtreatment and torture. Worse, they risk being detained without access to a lawyer or social workers.12 Women, another vulnerable group, are often victims of sexual abuse and rape, particularly in detention centres.13
On 23 November 2009, about 200 militiamen working for the clan of Andal Ampatuan Senior, the governor of the region of Maguindanao, attacked a convoy of journalists, lawyers, human rights activists, and close relatives of Esmael Mangudadatu, vice mayor of the town of Bulan, who were going to officially register his candidacy to the office of governor. At least 58 people were killed.16 A victim of multiple death threats, Esmael Mangudadatu had preferred to send his sisters, his wife and his campaign team in his place, because he believed that the presence of women and members of the press would ensure the convoy's safety. The investigation revealed that the Ampatuan clan had an actual private army. Due to the slowness of the legal proceedings, the lengthy pre-trial detention practiced by the police and army in legal or secret detention* centres and in military camps increase the risk of ill-treatment and torture.17 To a lesser extent, militants of armed groups are sometimes guilty of abuse against civilians when there is a conflict between them and the military.18

According to the testimonies of the victims, the main techniques of physical torture used are beatings with fists, sticks or rifle butts to the stomach, carried out so as not to leave visible marks; electric shocks directly to the skin, or with water on the body, or with electrical wires attached to the genitals, lips, ears, arms or legs; suffocation with a plastic bag (a method dubbed the dry submarine); simulated drowning in toilets or barrels; force-feeding of water or other liquids, and the application of hot pepper on the eyes or genitals. Mock executions and death threats against the victim, his loved ones and family are often reported as methods of psychological torture*.19 The intensity and duration of the torture sessions increase for political suspects and detainees and for persons suspected of insurrection, in order to crush the victims.20 For ordinary offences, abuse is usually inflicted in order to obtain confessions or information to use in judicial proceedings. It can also be practiced for purposes of extortion or to obtain sexual favors.21

All the security forces (police, military, paramilitary, prison guards) are accused of engaging in the ill-treatment and abuse of suspects and detainees. The majority of torture allegations implicate members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines as part of the fight against insurgency, especially in the region of Mindanao,14 an island located in the southern part of the archipelago where the country's Muslim minority is concentrated and where the MILF operates. The provinces of Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao and Cotabato are also the sites of illegal actions by the military.15 Agents of the Philippine National Police, or PNP, linked to violent and arbitrary practices since the days of the dictatorship, regularly commit abuses in their premises or in clandestine detention centres. Paramilitary groups, such as the Civilian Volunteer Organizations (CVO) or the Citizens Armed Force Geographical Units (CAFGU), authorized and even supported by successive administrations to combat the rebel factions alongside the regular army, militias and death squads known as vigilantes are also among the torturers. Their recruits are sometimes used by local politicians to fight crime or to intimidate, brutalize or even assassinate their opponents.
104
105

The Philippines has ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but it is not a party to the International Convention against Enforced Disappearances. Signed in April 2008 by the then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture has not yet been ratified by the Senate. After sixteen years of silence, the government submitted its second periodic report to the UN Committee against Torture* (CAT) in 2009; however, this lacked statistical information and practical information on the implementation of the provisions of the Convention and relevant domestic legislation.22 The definition and specific criminalization of torture were introduced into Philippine law with the Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (or Republic Act No. 9745),23 issued on 12 November 2009. The text provides for sentences ranging from one month to life imprisonment for torturers, depending on the gravity of the acts committed. In addition, it states that no circumstance can justify the use of torture (Article 6) and that any confession, admission, or statement obtained as a result of torture is inadmissible in court (Article 8). Thus, on 10 December 2010, the Head of State ordered the General Prosecutor to drop all charges filed against the Morong 43 (See Victims Section), based on evidence obtained through illegal means.24 This law has also given the Commission on Human Rights the responsibility to investigate complaints of torture and to assist victims throughout the legal proceedings. Unless a victim asks the police or investigators of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), often linked to torturers, to conduct investigations into an allegation of torture or ill-treatment, the preliminary investigation will be made by the Commission. It must also be concluded within sixty days following the lodging date of the complaint (Article 9). Furthermore, the text has established prevention mechanisms, such as obligations on the police and army to submit monthly reports to the Commission on the places of detention they have used and to keep a list of detained prisoners, containing, among other things, their name, date of imprisonment, and the offence with which they are charged (Article 7). Acts of torture are likewise outlawed in the context of armed conflict by the Philippine Act on Crimes against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide and other Crimes against Humanity (Republic Act No. 9851), adopted in December 2009.

Acts of torture attributed to the police and army still remain unpunished, despite commitments made in 2010 by the new government and the entry into force of the law against torture. Following the release of the video of Darius Evangelista (See Victims Section), 11 police officers were suspended by the authorities, but to this date, none of them has been prosecuted under this law. The implementation of this law poses many problems for victims who are desperate to see the proceedings come to an end and who often decide to withdraw their complaint due to a lack of confidence in the legal system or a lack of the necessary financial resources. Indeed, complainants must deal with the slowness and lack of competence of the employees of the Commission on Human Rights and with numerous obstacles in the conduct of investigations: a lack of protection for victims, their family and witnesses; intimidation and threats of reprisals by torturers; drawn-out procedures as a result of the lack of sanctions against investigators when they do not meet the sixty-day deadline; and a shortage of independent forensic experts, forcing judges to base their judgments on oral testimony.25 In addition, the Commission must submit its findings for approval to the Ombudsman in charge of the investigations and prosecutions of members of the army, police and other law enforcement bodies (Tanodbayan), whose authorization is required to bring the latter before a criminal court.26 Also, Philippine law demands that complaints contain the name(s) of the torturer(s), the location where the abuse took place, and medical evidence of torture suffered. Thus, perpetrators of torture take care to eliminate elements capable of exposing them, by concealing their identity and blindfolding their victims, transferring prisoners from one detention centre to another, and colluding with the doctors in charge of examining detainees.27 The President, who created a Truth Commission* to investigate suspected corruption, embezzlement and electoral fraud charges hanging over the previous administration (a commission the Supreme Court deemed illegal), does not seem to be ready to do the same for countless human rights violations that occurred during Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's presidency. Currently a Member of Parliament of the province of Pampanga, she is the target of a collective request filed in June 2011. A group of victims families is demanding the recognition and punishment of perpetrators of murder, torture and kidnapping committed with total impunity for suspected rebels when Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was in power.28
106
[1] In 2010, the country ranked 134th out of 178 in the businessmen-driven Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) prepared by Transparency International: http://www.transparence-france.org/e_upload/pdf/cpi2010_table_2010.pdf. [2] Human Rights Watch (HRW), World Report 2011: The Philippines, http://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2011/philippines. [3] Press Emblem Campaign (PEC), 65 journalists killed in 2011, 110 in 2010 [around the world], August 2011, http://www.pressemblem.ch/5037.html. [4] KARAPATAN (Alliance for the Advancement of People's Rights), 2010 Year-end Report on the situation of Human Rights in Philippines, 54 pages, 1 December 2010, p. 16-17, http://www.karapatan.org/files/Karapatan%202010%20HR%20Report%20 %28updated%29.pdf. [5] United Nations Committee against Torture, 42nd session, Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture: the Philippines, CAT/C/PHL/CO/2, 29 May 2009, 12 pages, p. 3, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/427/20/PDF/ G0942720.pdf?OpenElement. [6] Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP), TFDP condemns authorities for the continued use of torture, 24 June 2011, http://www.tfdp.net/campaigns/on-torture/257-tfdp-condemns-authorities-for-the-continued-use-of-torture. [7] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2010 Human Rights Report: Philippines, 8 April 2011, 37 pages, p. 4, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160099.pdf. [8] Amnesty International, Philippines: Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review, 28 November 2007, 5 pages, p. 3, http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/asset/ASA35/006/2007/en/eec90aaf-a2e7-11dc-8d74-6f45f39984e5/asa350062007en.pdf. [9] ACAT-France, Philippines : Torture [Philippines: Torture], Urgent appeal, 27 June 2011, http://www.acatfrance.fr/medias/ appel_urgent/doc/AU_26_Philippines-Palestine.pdf. [10] ACAT-France, Philippines : Dtentions arbitraires et allgations de torture [Philippines: Arbitrary detentions and allegations of torture], Urgent appeal, 8 March 2010, http://www.acatfrance.fr/medias/appel_urgent/doc/AU_10_Philippines-Liban.pdf. [11] Amnesty International, Annual Report 2011, The state of the world's human rights, Philippines, http://www.amnesty.org/en/ region/philippines/report-2011. [12] Fdration internationale de lAction des Chrtiens pour lAbolition de la Torture (FIACAT) [International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture] and ACAT-Philippines, Alternative report on the implementation of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 2009, 34 pages, p. 12, http://www.fiacat.org/IMG/pdf/ Alternative_Report__Philippines_before_the_CAT_Final-4.pdf. [13] United Nations Committee against Torture, op. cit., p. 9. [14] Ibidem, p. 11. [15] Task Force Civilian Protection (TFCP), Alyansa Ng Mga Mamamayan Para Sa Karapatang Pantao (AMKP), Mindanao Peoples Peace Movement (MPPM) and Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), Unraveling stories of human rights violations in Lanao del Sur, Lanao del Norte, North Cotabato and Maguindanao provinces: a Report, 12-22 October 2008, 28 pages, p.3, http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/%28httpDocuments%29/2BA42277DF37810BC1257535003A12 23/$file/Unravelling+stories+of+HR+violations+Nov08.pdf. [16] Human Rights Watch, They own the people: The Ampatuans, State-Backed Militias, and Killings in the Southern Philippines, 16 November 2010, 104 pages, p. 3, http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2010/11/16/they-own-people-0. [17] United Nations Committee against Torture, op. cit., p. 6. [18] TFCP, AMKP, MPPM and PAHRA, op. cit., p. 10. [19] FIACAT and ACAT-Philippines, op. cit., p. 11. [20] Id. [21] FIACAT and ACAT-Philippines, op. cit., p. 12. [22] United Nations Committee against Torture, op. cit., p. 1. [23] Republic of the Philippines, Act penalizing torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and prescribing penalties therefor, 10 November 2009, http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/ra_14/RA09745.pdf. [24] Human Rights Watch, Philippines: Aquino's Order to Free Morong 43 a Positive Step, 14 December 2010, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/12/13/philippines-aquino-s-order-free-morong-43-positive-step. [25] Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Special report: Torture in the Philippines and the unfulfilled promise of the 1987 Constitution, Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2011, 112 pages, p. 8-15, http://www.article2.org/pdf/v10n01.pdf. [26] Ibid., p. 8-9. [27] AHRC, Philippines: Torture victims speak out The evidence is suppressed to weaken a case, 17 June 2011, http://www.humanrights.asia/opinions/interviews/AHRC-ETC-028-2011/?searchterm=philippines%20torture.
[28] Une glise protestante et des familles de victimes dexcutions extrajudiciaires dposent une requte en recours collectif contre lex-prsidente Gloria Arroyo [A Protestant church and families of victims of extrajudicial executions file a class action suit against ex-President Gloria Arroyo], glises dAsie (information agency for missions outside Paris), 17 June 2011, http://eglasie.mepasie.org/asie-du-sud-est/philippines/une-eglise-protestante-et-des-familles-de-victimes-dexecutionsextrajudiciaires-deposent-une-requete-en-recours-collectif-contre-lex-presidente-gloria-arroyo.
108
109
THAILAND
Muslims. This conflict, which has seen a sharp increase since 2004, has claimed the lives of around 5,000 people in eight years.2 The situation of human rights overall remains disconcerting, with the increasing invocation of the crime of lese majesty3 to suppress freedom of expression4 and arrest dissidents.5 In addition, Thailand still applies the death penalty, with two executions in 2009, and expels Hmong refugees to Laos, where they risk persecution, and the Burmese to Myanmar.6 During her policy speech on 23 August 2011, the new Head of Government did not mention these issues among her priorities.

Despite the tutelary figure of King Rama IX, the constitutional monarchy fell into a political crisis after the coup of September 2006. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, strongly criticized for his repressive policies, the serious violations of human rights, and institutionalization of torture under his mandate, was overthrown by the army following accusations of corruption and authoritarianism. After a period of martial law, legislative elections gave the power back to his partisans in December 2007. A series of demonstrations was, therefore, launched by the movement of the socalled yellow shirts, composed of a large section of military members, urban elites, bureaucrats, monarchists and those disappointed by the liberal and populist policy of Thaksin Shinawatra. In December 2008, this coalition got Parliament to appoint as Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, head of the opposition party, People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD). In spring 2010, the red shirts, the supporters of the ousted Head of Government, in turn initiated a large-scale protest, demanding early elections and more social justice. The repression carried out by the government caused the deaths of at least 92 people and left 2,100 injured between April and May 2010. As a result of these events, Abhisit Vejjajiva is the focus of a complaint for crimes against humanity filed with the International Criminal Court* (ICC).1 In the wake of the general elections of July 2011, the opposition candidate, Yingluck Shinawatra, sister of Thaksin Shinawatra (in exile since the coup of 2006), was named as Prime Minister. Alongside this national division, the three southern predominantly Malay and Muslim provinces (Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat) are plagued by a long-standing armed separatist insurgency against the central government, Thai and Buddhist. The rebels commit numerous attacks against the soldiers and civilians, Buddhists as well as Under the government of Abishit Vejjajiva, torture continued to be used against insurgents and their suspected supporters in the south, but also against alleged members and sympathizers of red shirts, or political opponents in general. In 2010, the National Human Rights Commission received 78 complaints regarding abuse by law enforcement agents.
Victims
The widely publicized death in March 2008 of the imam Yapha Kaseng, 56 years old, as a result of abuse inflicted during his detention in a military camp in Narathiwat for his presumed support of the rebels,7 did not stop the continued abuses perpetrated in the counter-insurgency campaign in the southern provinces.8 Therefore, Sulaiman Naesa, a 25-year-old Muslim, arrested on 22 May 2010 for security reasons was detained in a military base in Ingkharayuthboriham (Pattani).9 On 30 May, the authorities informed his family that he hanged himself in his cell. Various injuries and numerous traces of blood on the body of the young man, particularly around his genital organs, indicate more likely that he had been tortured. Other detainees in this facility mentioned beatings and suffocation with plastic bags inflicted on prisoners.10 The individuals arrested during the wave of repression led after the red shirts uprising in the spring of 2010 (between 260, according to the authorities, and 450, according to nongovernmental sources) were also exposed to abuse. According to Thai human rights associations, most of them were threatened, intimidated or tortured to confess a crime.11 On 16 May 2010, Krishna Tanchayaphong, 34 years old, and Surachai Pringphong, 19 years old, participated in a protest rally in the embattled commercial district of Ratchaprasong in the capital Bangkok. Shortly thereafter, the two men and a juvenile were stopped by approximately 20 soldiers at a military
110
111
checkpoint. They were subjected to a harsh interrogation for forty-five minutes, conducted by unregistered soldiers, some of whose faces were covered. They were whipped with a cord, strangled, beaten, trampled and threatened with being burned alive, all while being filmed. Forced to sign confessions that they did not read, they were then transferred to the police station. The two adults were sentenced to a year in prison the next day.12 From arrest to detention, individuals suspected of common offences, particularly drug users and traffickers, often risk being subjected to violence at the hands of law enforcement officials. The NGO Cross Cultural Foundation, for example, has demanded an investigation into the allegation of torture of a person accused of burglary. M.A., arrested on 30 January 2011 in the province of Narathiwat, was beaten, trampled and submerged in water by soldiers to confess his crime.13 Those sentenced to death are also among the victims of ill-treatment. From the time they arrive in prison, they are shackled with leg irons weighing between 10 and 40 pounds and the majority are left like this throughout their entire detention. This practice, justified by exceptional circumstances such as the risk of escape or mental problems, but declared illegal by an administrative jurisdiction, is still ongoing.14

The most frequently denounced perpetrators of abuses are the ground troops of the Royal Thai Army (RTA) and, to a lesser extent, agents of the Royal Thai Police (RTP). Torture generally takes place in periods of detention, particularly during the first three days. In the three southern provinces, security forces for several years now have had a legal arsenal encouraging the commission of abuse and acts of torture. On the one hand, the Emergency Decree,15 adopted in July 2005 and still in force except for one district in Pattani, allows the detention of suspects for thirty days without charge, and the use of unauthorized places of detention. This text also gives the Prime Minister the opportunity to delegate powers to any competent official or person having identical powers and duties as a competent official. This provision has resulted in the creation of joint committees between members of the army, police and civil administration, with the authority to prohibit any action such as is necessary to maintain the security of the state, the safety of the country, or the safety of the people, which has contributed to abuses.16 On the other hand, martial law, introduced throughout the country at the time of the coup of 2006, then limited to this region in 2008, provides the arrest of individuals without warrant and the detention of any person who is the focus of suspicion for seven days, outside of all judicial review. Furthermore, in 2007, the government supplied arms to civilians
and agents of the Ministry of the Interior of these provinces. This measure was likely a factor in increased cases of enforced disappearances*, ill-treatment and torture recorded at the time.17 Finally, the homeland security law, the Internal Security Act (ISA),18 invoked in this region since 2008, gives considerable powers (specifically, the use of deadly force) to a military entity, the Internal Security Operation Command (ISOC) to crack down on groups, individuals and organizations perceived as threats to security, an imprecise qualification. Among the official places of detention in the southern provinces, some have been clearly identified as torture centres, particularly Camp Ingkharayuthboriham. In addition, there are at least 21 secret detention* facilities in the region.19 In the rest of the country, demonstrations by the red shirts led on several occasions to the application of the homeland security law in areas of conflict between 2008 and 2011 and the adoption of state emergency in Bangkok and its surrounding areas in April 2010, and subsequently, to its extension to 19 other provinces in the north, north-east and in the centre. These measures have created an environment conducive to torture. Furthermore, in April 2010, an ad hoc civil-military body, the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation, was created, with the objective to arrest, interrogate and detain protesters, sympathizers and leaders of the main opposition movement, the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship. The latter have been subjected to torture20 in military structures where they were imprisoned, in addition to all of the people accused of involvement in political violence.21 The state of emergency was lifted in the capital in December 2010.

The most frequently used techniques are intimidation and psychological harassment; repeated beatings, particularly with blunt objects or wooden bats covered with a sponge; burns on different parts of the body with lighters, candles or cigarettes; burial up to the neck; exposure to extreme temperatures, suffocation with a plastic bag and electric shocks,22 especially to the genitals.23 The goal is generally to extract information or confessions due to intelligence failures and the difficulty of obtaining evidence, especially in the south of the country. Many victims have reported being forced to sign documents after suffering abuse. The torturers also look for ways to force people and their loved ones to refuse or stop supporting the insurgents or the protesters.
112
113

Thailand has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture. It is also a party to the Geneva Conventions since 1954, which prohibit the torture perpetrated in the context of the armed civil conflict in the south. It did not signed the Convention against Enforced Disappearances. The Constitution forbits torture,24 without defining or criminalizing it, and without questioning State officials in any specific way. Article 289 of the Penal Code calls for the death penalty for anyone who causes someone's death through torture or other acts of cruelty. The punishment provided by this text for mental or physical damage caused to a third person is maximum two years in prison and/or a fine of up to 4,000 bahts (about 130 dollars) and the punishment for serious injuries caused by torture or a cruel act is at least three years in prison and/or a fine of 6,000 bahts (about 200 dollars).25 These provisions, already incomplete, are even more attenuated by numerous legal loopholes due to the repeated and extended adoption of the state of emergency legislation by the government26 (cf. section Torturers). Furthermore, this legislation grants disciplinary, civil and criminal immunity to the military and police for acts committed within the scope of their duties.

In the case of abuse committed by the police, citizens can lodge a complaint with the immediate superior of the agent in question, or Police General Inspector and Police Commissioner General, who possess neither the impartiality nor the independence necessary to investigate their own colleagues. Torture victims also have the possibility to contact the Office of the Ombudsman, who has the power to conduct investigations and make recommendations to Parliament or to refer a case to a court,27 to the cabinet of the Prime Minister and to the National Human Rights Commission, which can definitely investigate but only submit non-binding recommendations on the results of its investigations.28 Regarding violence committed in April and May 2010, the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand, created on following July, is tasked with investigating the facts and compensating victims, but is blocked by the lack of collaboration of the red shirts, police and military, and the fact that it does not have the power to summon, nor to prosecute the suspected guilty parties.29 Moreover, in cases of torture that took place during the application of the state of emergency law since 2005, the complainant bears the burden of proving that the State agent acted in bad faith and in an unreasonable manner in order to lift his immunity.30
In practice, the few investigations or legal prosecutions initiated hardly produce any results. On 26 April 2010, a soldier who had hit two detainees in 2009, was found guilty of abuse and sentenced to six months imprisonment with a suspended sentence by the Pattani Military Court, sentence reduced to two years of probation.31 Indeed, impunity prevails for perpetrators of ill-treatment, torture and other atrocities. At the time of the drafting of this report, not a single public official had been convicted for the 2,800 deaths and enforced disappearances tied to the war on drugs initiated by Thaksin Shinawatra in 2003. The same is true for the massacres in Krue Se on 28 April 28 2004 (the military assault on a mosque filled with suspected Islamic militants, resulting in 32 deaths) or in Tak Bai on 25 October 2004 (the execution of seven people by security forces during the scattering of unarmed Muslim protestors and the deaths by suffocation of 78 others during their transport in military trucks) and the death of the imam Yapha Koseng,32 as well as for the enforced disappearance of the lawyer and human rights defender Somchai Neelaphaijit in March 2004 and the deaths of April-May 2010. In rare cases, the authorities propose financial compensation to avoid legal proceedings. The families of the victims of the Tak Bai massacre, thus, turned down prosecuting the government in exchange for 42 million bahts (about 1.4 million dollars) in compensation, even though an investigating committee had established the guilt of senior military officers. In July 2011, the Royal Army, Royal Police and Ministry of Defense agreed to compensate the family of Yapha Koseng 5.2 million bahts (about 170,000 dollars) in a civil arbitration before the Bangkok's civil court.33 In certain cases, the victims can have their complaint turned against them. For example, on 10 August 2011, Suderueman Malae, represented by the lawyer Somchai Neelaphajit before he was reported missing had been sentenced to two years in prison for having denounced a police officer in his complaint of torture he filed against five police officers in 2004. The officer in question claimed that he was not present that day, contrary to what he had said in his official statement and without providing a single piece of evidence to corroborate his statements.34 In this context, the lack of an effective mechanism for the protection of witnesses, the fear of reprisals and the lack of trust in the justice system explain the low number of complaints for enforced disappearances, torture, extrajudicial executions and other violations of human rights recorded in Thailand.
114
115
[27] Asian Ombudsman Association (AOA), AOA Fact Sheet: Ombudsman of Thailand, 8 April 2011, 6 pages, p. 1, http://asianombudsman.com/ORC/factsheets/ThailandOmbudsmanFactsheet.pdf. [1] AMSTERDAM & PEROFF on behalf of the National United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), Application to investigate the situation of the kingdom of Thailand with regard to the commission of crimes against humanity, Executive Summary, January 30, 2011, 7 pages, http://www.thaiaccountability.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Executive-Summary-Final.pdf. [2] Un Sud meurtri [A South shattered], Courrier international, 13 July 2011, http://www.courrierinternational.com/ article/2011/07/13/un-sud-meurtri. [3] Kingdom of Thailand, Penal Code, Section 112: Whoever, defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years, http://www.thailandlawonline.com/Laws/criminallaw-thailand-penal-code.html. [4] Reporters Without Borders (RWB), Treason used as a tool of repression against the media close the opposition, 2 May 2001, http://fr.rsf.org/thailande-le-lese-majeste-utilise-comme-02-05-2011,40120.html. [5] Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), Stop criminalizing opponents by invoking Section 112/To uphold democratic atmosphere and promote free and fair elections, 1 May 2011, http://voicefromthais.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/2011_05_01_-crcf-statement-onstop-accusing-opponent-with-art-112.pdf. [6] United Nations, Human Rights Council, 16th session, Report of the special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment on punishment, Juan E. Mndez, Addendum, Summary of information including individual cases, transmitted to Governments & replies received, Thailand, A/HRC/16/52/Add.1, 1 March 2011, 575 pages, p. 472-496, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/ doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/114/90/PDF/G1111490.pdf?OpenElement. [7] DE GUZMANN, Orlando and MARSHALL, Andrew. Thailand's tropical gulag, Aljazeera, 19 January 2011, http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/peopleandpower/2011/01/2011120123150795429.html. [8] Amnesty International, Thailand: Torture in the Southern Counter-Insurgency, 13 January 2009, 41 pages, http://www.amnesty. org/en/library/asset/ASA39/001/2009/en/45c1226f-dcd6-11dd-bacc-b7af5299964b/asa390012009eng.pdf. [9] United Nations Human Rights Council, op. cit., p. 467. [10] DE GUZMANN, Orlando and MARSHALL, Andrew. Op. cit. [11] Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), The State of Human Rights in Thailand in 2010, 21 pages, p. 7, http://www.humanrights.asia/resources/hrreport/2010/AHRC-SPR-011-2010.pdf. [12] Ibid., p. 5. [13] CrCF urges Army Commander, Police Commander and NHRC to investigate allegation on torture case related to a gun robbery suspect, 11 February 2011, http://voicefromthais.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/11feb2011_-news-alert_-torture-allegation-_eng__ final_.pdf. [14] United Nations Human Rights Council, op. cit., p. 462-466. [15] Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situation, B.E. 2548 (2005), 16 July 2005, http://www.legaljustask.com/index.php?lay=show&ac=article&Id=539224365&Ntype=6. [16] International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), The Implementation of Thailand's Emergency Decree, July 2007, 55 pages, p. 19, http://www.icj.org/img/ThaiEmergDecree.pdf. [17] Amnesty International, op.cit. p. 9. [18] Internal Security Act, B.E. 2551 (2008), 28 February 2008, http://www.thailawonline.com/en/thai-laws/laws-ofthailand/212-internal-security-act-be-2551-2008.html. [19] Amnesty International, op. cit., p. 7. [20] Human Rights Watch, Descent into Chaos: Thailand 2010's Red Shirt Protest and the Government Crackdown, 156 pages, p. 23, http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/thailand0511webwcover_0.pdf. [21] Ibid., p. 121. [22] Amnesty International, Thailand: Time to end human rights violations: Amnesty International Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review, October 2011, July 31, 2011, 11 pages, p. 5, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA39/001/2011/en/ f3c62adf-5601-458a-b525-895016d56407/asa390012011en.pdf. [23] Asian Human Rights Commission, Why do Thai police electrocute the genitals of persons in their custody?, June 25, 2005, http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0403/196/. [24] Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, B.E. 2550 (2007), 24 August 2007, Section 32: A person shall enjoy the right and liberty in his life and person. A torture, brutal act or punishment by a cruel or inhuman means shall not be made; provided that punishment under judgments of the Courts or by virtue of the law shall not be deemed the punishment by a cruel or inhuman means under this paragraph. [25] Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT), Country File Thailand, June 2009, 3 pages, http://www.apt.ch/index. php?option=com_k2&view=item&layout=item&id=819&Itemid=266&lang=en. [26] Amnesty International, Thailand. Repeal or Reform Emergency Legislation Immediately, 30 September 2010, http://www.amnesty.org/fr/for-media/press-releases/thailand-repeal-or-reform-emergency-legislationimmediately-2010-09-30. [28] Office of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand, The Complaints Procedure and Investigation of Complaints, http://www.nhrc.or.th/menu_content.php?doc_id=176. [29] International Crisis Group (ICG), Thailand: The Calm before Another Storm?, Asia Briefing No. 121, 11 April 2011, 19 pages, p. 9, http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/asia/south-east-asia/thailand/B121-%20Thailand-%20The%20Calm%20 Before%20Another%20Storm.pdf. [30] ICJ, Submission to the Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review on Thailand, March 2011, 5 pages, p. 4, http://www.icj.org/dwn/database/UPR%20Thailand%202011%20ICJ%20submission.pdf. [31] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2010 Human Rights Report: Thailand, 8 April 2011, 57 pages, p. 5. [32] Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), Submission to the Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review concerning human rights, political crisis, and impunity in Thailand, 14 March 2011, 6 pages, p. 5, http://www.alrc.net/PDF/ALRC-UPR-12-001-2011Thailand.pdf. [33] Thai officials agree imam death payout: court, News.yahoo.com, 27 July 2011, http://news.yahoo.com/thai-officials-agreeimam-death-payout-court-172155332.html. [34] AHRC, THAILAND: Court demonstrates contempt for human rights by jailing torture victim on say-so of alleged perpetrator, 11 August 2011, http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-103-2011.
116
117
VIETNAM
The government particularly seeks to silence dissent on issues regarding the border dispute with China5 and the exploitation of bauxite deposits, launched in 2007, in the Central Highlands. Opponents feel these mining projects pose environmental pollution risks, increase China's hold on the economy with mining concessions granted to a Chinese company, and result in evictions and land confiscations for ethnic minorities living in the affected provinces (Lam Dong and Dac Nong).
PRACTICE OF TORTURE
Law enforcement officers often resort to excessive force, ill-treatment and torture during arrest and detention. At least nine people died in police custody in 2010, with the police attributing their deaths, for the most part, to suicide.6
BACKGROUND
The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, proclaimed in 1976, is an authoritarian one-party the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) regime. At its 11th five-year meeting in January 2011, the CPV's National Congress appointed through an opaque process a new President, Nguyen Minh Triet; a new Secretary General of the Party, Nguyen Phu Trong; and re-elected Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung as the leading member of the Politburo, the Party's supreme body. These last two are the country's highest officials. The 500 members of the National Assembly elected in May 2007 were all pre-approved by the Vietnamese Fatherland Front, an offshoot of the CPV. The country, which has experienced rapid economic development over the last twenty years, had made pledges of political and social liberalization in order to gain membership to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2007. Since then, the authorities have returned to a severe repressive policy to bolster the Party's monopoly and fight against dissidents.1 National Security provisions in the Penal Code (which came into effect in 2000) provide vague definitions of offences, sometimes punishable by death, which allow for the criminalization of any expression, assembly, religion or association deemed critical of the authorities.2 This is demonstrated by the many arrests and convictions of democratic activists, opponents, human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists, and citizens calling for the respect of fundamental rights or peacefully expressing opinions which differ from the regime's . For example, the Franco-Vietnamese professor, Pham Minh Hoan, 56, who criticized the authorities policies on his blog,3 was sentenced on 10 August 2011 to three years in prison and a further three years house arrest for his activities aimed at overthrowing the people's administration, a charge often used.4
Victims
All citizens arrested by the police, even for minor offences such as traffic violation or burglary, risk being mistreated and tortured. Some of them die as a result of the ill-treatment to which they were subjected. For instance, Nguyen Van Khuong, a young man aged 21 years, living in Bac Giang province, in the northeast of the country, was beaten to death in July 20107 after being pulled over for driving a scooter without a helmet. Violence by law enforcement officers also targets religious communities that are not recognized by the State such as the Mennonite Christian Church, the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, and some branches of the Cao Dai Syncretist Church as well as ethnic minorities claiming to religious freedom, such as the Khmer Krom Buddhists originating from Cambodia or indigenous people of the Montagnard community, located in the Central Highlands. The latter are connected to undeclared Protestant or Catholic Churches and therefore fall outside of the control of the official Churches. These groups are exposed to particularly brutal crackdowns in certain towns and provinces. In May 2011, about 8,500 Christians and animists from the Hmong community living in the northwest of Vietnam gathered peacefully in the province of Dien Bien to demand greater autonomy and respect for religious freedom. At least 49 people were killed and hundreds more injured by the security forces and the People's Army. These operations provoke arbitrary arrests and detentions
118
119
during which prisoners are subjected to ill-treatment and torture.8 Since 2001, at least 25 Montagnards have died in police custody or in prison as a result of injuries or illnesses contracted during their imprisonment, or shortly after their release.9 There are also reports of ill-treatment being inflicted upon human rights and democratic activists, as well as political dissidents,10 who are often held in secret detention*, before being transferred to prisons and work camps. Le Nguyen Sang, for example, doctor and founder of the People's Democratic Party, sentenced to four years in prison for propaganda against the Socialist Republic, after his release in August 2010, described the fourteen months he spent in isolation with corporal punishment imposed on inmates who did not meet the imposed daily work quota. Le Nguyen Sang was chained whenever he was too tired or sick to work.11 Drug users forcibly brought into detoxification centre without any judicial framework (their numbers apparently exceed 33,00012) also risk abuse if they do not complete all of their therapeutic work (underpaid dirty work, painful physical exercises and training in communist ideology) or violate internal rules.13
Prisoners are sent either to educational institutions (Art. 25-1) generally meaning re-education camps and social welfare centres (Trung Tam Bao Tro Xa Hoi), housing street children, prostitutes, drug addicts and other of society's bad elements or to medical facilities (Art. 26-1), including psychiatric hospitals. These provisions, particularly used against political and religious opponents,15 create situations that foster abuse. Detention conditions in prisons and work camps, which are especially harsh, could constitute inhuman and degrading treatment, or even torture. In these unwealthy and systematically overcrowded places, prisoners lack drinking water and do not receive sufficient food or appropriate medical treatment. In addition, they are generally forced to perform hard labor without pay and can be beaten, abused, kept for weeks or months in solitary confinement* in tiny cells without windows or ventilation.16 According to several of the inmates families, the prison staff refuses medication brought from outside but grant privileges to prisoners who pay them bribes.

Provincial, district and city police agents, under the command of the Ministry of Public Security and the People's Committee of the CPV the State's executive bodies are the main perpetrators of ill-treatment and torture. In 2010, cases of persecution and police brutality were signaled in a large number of the country's 58 provinces and 5 municipalities administratively on the same level as provinces. Soldiers in the People's Army also commit abuses against the population. Civil Defense forces (dan phong), consisting of volunteer citizens and led by neighborhood People's Committees, are sometimes involved in acts of torture. Their members, essentially thugs contracted by the local government, often work with police to crack down on offenders, pacifist religious practitioners or demonstrators and dissidents. On 30 July 2010, after an altercation with a municipal police officer in a restaurant, Nguyen Van Trung, a 46 year-old resident of Binh Thuan province, was beaten over the head and on back with truncheons by four members of the Civil Defense force, then taken to the police station where he was insulted and further hit before being urgently transferred by his family to the hospital.14 Ordinance No. 44 on Regulating Administrative Violations, adopted in July 2002, allows provincial and district People's Committees to arrest and hold, for periods ranging from six months to ten years and without any trial or judicial review, citizens who have violated laws on security, public order and social safety (Art. 1-3).

Punches and beatings are the techniques most often used by torturers. Some accounts report electric shocks. Victims are sometimes deprived of sleep, chained, confined for extended periods and only allowed out in order to be extensively interrogated or abused.17 While in police custody and pre-trial detention (which can last up to twenty months for cases involving threats to national security), torture and ill-treatment are routinely used to extract confessions and to force political detainees to give information on their activities or on other activists. As for individuals arrested on religious grounds, they are often required to reject their belief and join a State-recognized Church.18 Catholic and Protestant Montagnards who refused to abjure their faith during public criticism sessions organized by public officials were beaten so as to not practice their alleged false religion.
120
121

Vietnam, a party since 1982 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which forbids torture, has not signed the United Nations Convention against Torture. Following the Universal Periodic Review* (UPR) to the United Nations Human Rights Council* in October 2009, the Vietnamese delegation stated that such membership was in principle in conformity with the policy and law of the country, which was taking speedy steps to join this Convention.19 To date, these declarations of principle have remained a dead letter. The 1992 Constitution states, in Article 50, that human rights in all respects, political, civil, economic, cultural and social are respected. Under Article 71, citizens have the right to physical inviolability and all forms of coercion, humiliation and violation of a citizen's honor and dignity are strictly prohibited. However, the law on torture contains neither definition nor any specific criminalization. One must refer to ordinary offences to seek redress for certain acts that might constitute ill-treatment or torture. Under the Penal Code, the punishment for corporal punishment in investigating, prosecuting, adjudicating and/or judgement-executing activities ranges from six months to three years in prison. It ranges from five to twelve years when the consequences are serious but this concept is not clearly explained.20 Causing injuries or death through the resort to violence while performing official duties is also outlawed.21 Injuries are punishable by re-education without detention for a maximum of three years, or by imprisonment for a period ranging from three months to three years when they result in an infirmity rate of 31% or higher. Homicide can result in a sentence of between two and seven years or between seven and fifteen years in cases involving multiple deaths or in any other extremely serious case, another vague concept. Obtaining confessions under duress constitutes an offence punishable by between six months and ten years imprisonment.22
Constitution, the judiciary's role is to protect the socialist legislation, the socialist system. The judicial system, characterized by endemic corruption and a lack of training for lawyers and judges, is tightly controlled by the Party, the National Assembly and the Vietnamese Fatherland Front. At all levels, these institutions appoint the judges and the people's assessors who preside over the trial; they also influence the judgments handed down. As for the prosecutors, they are chosen by the Supreme People's Office of Supervision and Control (the equivalent of the Office of the Public Prosecutor) in accordance with their loyalty to the fatherland and to socialism. Hence, State agents generally enjoy impunity. Some law enforcement agents have been the subject of minimal disciplinary sanctions, which consist of apologizing to the victim's family, drafting a report for their immediate superiors, or changing units.23 In a few rare cases, police officers have been arrested, suspended or fired, under the pressure brought about by demonstrators, citizens and journalists who had denounced their abuse on blogs, independent websites,24 or in the local press, despite the government's attempts to silence the media. The death of Nguyen Van Khuong while in detention, for example, led thousands of persons to protest before the headquarters of local authorities and resulted in the arrest of a police officer for violence perpetrated while carrying out official functions and resulting in a death, and to the temporary suspension of three of his colleagues.25 However, no information could be then obtained on the progress of the investigation. Several articles published in the newspaper Gia Dinh & Xa Hoi in February 2010 resulted in the reopening of the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the suspicious death of Dang Trung Trinh on 28 November 2009 while in police custody in Tien Dong. The city police had attributed this death to liver disease, even though the autopsy revealed bruises on the whole body of the victim and broken ribs. The district police, although present alongside the family during the medical exam, had initially closed the case, but it was later forced to submit to the request of the judicial authorities and, in June 2010, it opened an investigation for arrest and illegal detention.26

Vietnam has no independent body tasked with the promotion and defence of human rights with the ability to investigate allegations of abuse of power, ill-treatment or torture committed by officials. In criminal cases, the prosecution and punishment of law enforcement agents are rare occurrences. In fact, there is no separation of powers in Vietnam. Under the
[1] ACAT-France, Vietnam : Rduire au silence les voix dissidentes [Vietnam: Silencing dissident voices], Appeal of the month, August 2007. [2] Such infractions include, among others, carrying out activities aimed at overthrowing the people's administration (Art. 79), undermining the unity policy (Art. 87), conducting propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Art. 88), disrupting security (Art. 89) and abusing democratic freedoms to infringe upon the interests of the State (Art. 258). [3] ACAT-France, Vietnam : Plus de cinq mois de dtention arbitraire [Vietnam: More than five months of arbitrary detention], Urgent Appeal, 24 January 2011, http://www.acatfrance.fr/medias/appel_urgent/doc/AU_4_Vietnam-Tchad.pdf.
122
[4] On 30 May 2011, three defenders of landless people, the Rev. Duong Kim Khai, Tran Thi Thuy et Nguyen Thanh Tam, for example, were sentenced to prison terms on this basis: ACAT-France, Vietnam : Condamnation de trois dfenseurs des sans-terre [Vietnam: Conviction of three defenders of landless people], 1 June 2011, http://www.acatfrance.fr/medias/communiques/doc/ CP_1_juin_2011_Vietnam_-_condamnation_de_trois_d%C3%A9fenseurs_des_sans_terres.pdf; Vietnam : Plus de cinq mois de dtention arbitraire [Vietnam: Over five months of arbitrary detention], Urgent Appeal, 24 January 2011, http://www.acatfrance.fr/ medias/appel_urgent/doc/AU_4_Vietnam-Tchad.pdf and Vietnam : Dtention arbitraire et risque de torture pour quatre Vietnamiens [Vietnam: Arbitrary detention and risk of torture for four Vietnamese], Urgent Appeal, 6 September 2010, http://www.acatfrance.fr/ appel_urgent_detail.php?archive=ok&id=276. ACAT-France has brought their case to the attention of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in October 2010. Lawyer Le Cong Dinh did the same, denouncing the incompatibility of Article 88 of the Penal Code with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the trial against two fellow human rights defenders. [5] Both countries claim sovereignty over archipelagoes located in the South China Sea, the Spratley and Paracel Islands. [6] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2010 Human Rights Report: Vietnam, 8 April 2011, 50 pages, p. 2, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160484.pdf. [7] Idem. [8] United Nations, Human Rights Council, Compilation established by the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: Vietnam, A/HRC/WG.6/5/VNM/2, 16 March 2009, 17 pages, p. 8, http://www.aidh.org/ONU_GE/conseilddh/examen/Images/ viet_HC.pdf; Vietnam Committee on Human Rights and International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Violations des Droits de lHomme en Rpublique Socialiste du Vietnam, rapport conjoint soumis loccasion de lExamen Priodique Universel du Vietnam [Human Rights Violations in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, joint report on the Universal Periodic Review of Vietnam], May 2009, 13 pages, p. 8, http://www.queme.net/fra/doc/UPR_Vietnam_2009_French.pdf. [9] Human Rights Watch, Montagnard Christians in Vietnam: A Case Study in Religious Repression, 30 March 2011, 55 pages, p. 31, http://www.hrw.org/node/97632. [10] Fdration Internationale des Droits de l'Homme (FIDH) [International Federation for Human Rights] Vietnam Committee on Human Rights, Vietnam: From vision to facts; Human rights in Vietnam under its chairmanship of ASEAN, September 2010, p.2632, http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/bon.pdf; Human Rights Watch (HRW), World Report 2011: Vietnam, January 2011, http://www. hrw.org/en/world-report-2011/vietnam. [11] FIDH, op. cit., p. 26-27. [12] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, op. cit., p. 4. [13] In February 2011, 164 detainees escaped from the detoxification centre in the coastal town of Danang, in the north of the country. [14] HRW, Vietnam: Widespread Police Brutality, Deaths in Custody, 22 September 2010, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/09/22/ vietnam-widespread-police-brutality-deaths-custody. [15] Vietnam Committee on Human Rights, Rule of Law or Rule by Law? Crime and Punishment in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 30 April 2011, 15 pages, p. 7, http://www.queme.net/eng/doc/Crime_and_Punishment_in_Vietnam.pdf. [16] FIDH, op. cit., p. 26. [17] Ibid., p. 26-31; HRW, World Report 2011: Vietnam, January 2011, http://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2011/vietnam. [18] Christian Solidarity International, Briefing Vietnam: A Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review, October 2008, 7 pages, p. 6, http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session5/VN/CSW_VNM_UPR_ S5_2009_ChristianSolidarityWorldwide.pdf. [19] United Nations, Human Rights Council, 12th session, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Viet Nam Addendum, A/HRC/12/11, 17 September 2009, 31 pages, p. 16, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/163/83/PDF/ G0916383.pdf?OpenElement. [20] Penal Code, Art. 298. [21] Ibid., Art. 107 and 97. [22] Ibid., Art. 299. [23] HRW, Vietnam: Widespread Police Brutality, Deaths in Custody. [24] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, op. cit., p. 2. [25] HRW, op. cit. [26] Idem.
125
EUROPE
Bosnia and Herzegovina . Moldova . United Kingdom .
126
127
UNITED KINGDOM
london 62.2 m
INTRODUCTION
Europe has created for itself a complete system of human rights protection, with the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which hears allegations of violations of that convention's provisions, and the creation of the post of Commissioner for Human Rights in 1999, responsible for the promotion of human rights throughout the Council of Europe's member States. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, in force since 1989, also created the Committee for the Prevention of Torture* (CPT), which visits all places of deprivation of liberty in the Council of Europe's member States (prisons, juvenile detention centres, police stations, immigrant detention centres, psychiatric hospitals and shelters) to monitor how the individuals detained are treated in these places and to propose recommendations to improve their situation. Despite this extremely protective normative framework, human rights are regularly abused in Europe and torture, although neither common nor systematic, is far from eradicated from the continent. Close to 10% of the cases before the ECHR are related to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, and between 1999 and 2009, 28 of the 47 member States of the Council of Europe were found guilty of a violation of Article 3. Moldova, Russia and Turkey1 are particularly sanctioned in the ECHR's decisions. In October 2011, during an investigative mission in Russia, ACAT-France found that torture and abuse were commonly practiced by the police and prison staff. The situation is particularly worrisome in the North Caucasus, with the widespread use of ill-treatment of persons held in custody by various law enforcement agencies, and with cases of arbitrary detentions, secret detentions* and enforced disappearances*. In its last mission reports, the CPT also cites ill-treatment frequently inflicted by police during interrogations in order to obtain confessions, particularly in Armenia, Kosovo, Moldova and Poland. In France, the UN Committee Against Torture* (CAT) expressed concern over the the persistent allegations that it has received regarding ill-treatment by law enforcement officers of detainees and other persons in their charge.
MOLDOVA
chisinau 3.5 m
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

sarajevo 3.7 m
128
129
Prisons are also a breeding ground for human rights violations. Since 2006, several countries, such as Albania, Bosnia, France, Greece, Latvia, Moldova, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine, have been singled out by the ECHR for cases of excessive violence, forced feeding, unjustified body searches and prolonged solitary confinement*. In formerly communist countries more particularly, an informal hierarchy among inmates is the source of many acts of violence, which range from simple intimidation to sexual abuse and beatings. They are tolerated, sometimes even encouraged, by the prison employees, who see them as a way to maintain order. Prison conditions are often deplorable, marked with overcrowding, filth, hygiene and access-to-care problems. The tendency when it comes to remedying these problems is to construct new ultramodern and high-security facilities, in which human contact is moved to the back burner. In France, the architecture, size, location and even the operation of these prisons are largely criticized, even by the prison staff union representatives. The conditions in which foreigners in irregular immigration situation are confined are also a source of concern. Thus, on the doorstep of the European Union, Greece keeps foreigners in police stations and other inadequate locations such as abandoned warehouses, for periods of up to six months, sometimes longer. During a visit to the police and border patrol post in Soufli in January 2011, the CPT found 146 irregular migrants crammed into a room of 110 m, with no access to outdoor exercise or any other possibility to move around and with only one functioning toilet and shower at their disposal. In this context, asylum seekers are not afforded the protection they are entitled to. In January 2011, the ECHR found Greece guilty of inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 against an Afghani asylum seeker, leading certain countries in the Union to suspend the readmission procedures for this country called for in the Dublin II Regulation, which establishes that an asylum seeker's request must be handled by the country through which he entered European territory. Confinements and returns to the border are also accompanied by an alarming tendency to outsource the European Union's immigration policy, which entrusts Mediterranean Rim's countries with the handling of these undesirables. In light of the recent events in Libya, the agreement reached during the summer of 2010 between the government of Silvio Berlusconi and Muammar Gaddafi's regime, where the latter agreed to prevent the departure of ships carrying immigrants to Italy, clearly calls into question the fate of these immigrants. Due to this migratory pressure, and under the pretext of national security, certain European States violate the principle of non-refoulement*, which prohibits the return of persons to countries where they risk being tortured. On 22 September 2011, the ECHR condemned France as it was about to return an Algerian national to the border, finding that he risked being subjected to abuse if returned to his country.
In the context of the fight against terrorism, European States have exempted themselves from a certain number of international provisions of human rights protection. Emergency legislation has been implemented, violating certain fundamental rights. Some governments, such as those of France, Germany and the United Kingdom, do not hesitate to cooperate in matters of intelligence with countries that practice torture, such as Uzbekistan or Pakistan, and, in certain cases, to use information obtained through torture in legal proceedings. Finally, despite the launching of investigations in the United Kingdom, Lithuania, Romania and Poland, little progress has been made to lift the veil on the participation of European governments in illegal activities carried out by the CIA as part of the "War on Terror" following the 11 September 2001 attacks (kidnappings, secret flights, secret detention sites and extraordinary renditions*).
The situation has changed little in those European countries which were examined in the 2010 report. In France, it has been observed that the conditions in which asylum seekers are received have deteriorated, as they are faced with numerous difficulties in asserting their rights. Nevertheless, an important step was taken in the prevention of police abuse with the June 2011 entry into force of a law that provides for the presence of a lawyer throughout the time spent in custody, with the exception, however, of the more sensitive offences related to terrorism or organized crime. Torture remains widespread in Russia.
[1] Turkey is mentioned here as a member State of the Council of Europe, but in this Report, it is analyzed in the section concerning the Middle East and North Africa.
130
131
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
The signing of the Stabilization and Association Agreement with the European Union on 16 June 2008 formally launched the process for Bosnia and Herzegovina's entry into the EU, but there remain significant blockages.2 These mainly consist of the dysfunction tied to the fragmentation of powers and the institutional complexity of the country, which impede the development of common policies and the implementation of reforms, particularly in public administration and the administration of justice. A review of the Constitution is also essential in order to take into account the December 2009 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Sedi and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina regarding ethnic discrimination in the country's political representative bodies.3
BACKGROUND
The signing of the Dayton Agreement on 14 December 1995 put an end to the war that had ravaged Bosnia for three years and caused the deaths of more than 100,000 people. The Dayton Agreement has defined the institutional organization of the country: Bosnia and Herzegovina is a federal State composed of two entities, the Republic of Srpska, or RS (Republika Srpska) and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina or FBiH (Federacija Bosne i Hercegovine). Brcko District, which enjoys autonomous status, is likewise placed under the jurisdiction of the central State. At the federal level, the leadership of the country is ensured by the collegiate presidency formed by representatives of the three main communities (Bosnians, Croats and Serbs), who alternate as Chairperson for eight months during the Presidency's four-year mandate. The Dayton Agreement has also established an international tutelage under the United Nations High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who is also the European Union Special Representative, with the specific power to dismiss political leaders and impose laws. Lastly, it has provided for the deployment of an international force, replaced in 2004 by a European force, EUFOR Althea. Sixteen years after the end of the conflict, Bosnia and Herzegovina remains deeply divided. Since the general elections in October 2010, which were marked by nationalist discourse, the country has been experiencing a serious political crisis and, a year later, has yet to establish a central government, due to the lack of agreement among the various bodies of political representation. The international community maintains its tutelage over the country and the EU still has a 1,600-strong peacekeeping force on site.1
PRACTICE OF TORTURE
In this context of close international monitoring, there is no obvious recourse to torture in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, certain practices and situations are contrary to the absolute prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Detention conditions remain largely below European prison standards and cases of ill-treatment have been signaled. In addition, as it draws closer to the European Union, Bosnia and Herzegovina has taken measures to fight terrorism that are conducive to abuse. Finally, although those mainly responsible for crimes committed during the conflict have been brought before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), particularly following the 26 May 2011 arrest of Ratko Mladi , a large number of war victims are still waiting for justice and reparation.
Detention Conditions and Ill-treatment

In the two entities, detention conditions are generally worrisome. In late 2009, 2,749 persons were imprisoned: 20 by the federal authorities, 1,671 by the FBiH and 1,058 by the RS.4 In a September 2009 report, human rights mediators or Ombudsmen an independent institution charged with human rights protection criticized outdated and overcrowded infrastructures, hygiene and promiscuity problems, difficult access to health services, and lack of activities.5 In almost all the facilities, violent incidents between detainees are frequent and lead to a general sense of insecurity.6 According to the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), the lack of an appropriate reaction by the prison
132
133
administration can foster a climate in which inmates minded to ill-treat other inmates can quickly come to believe - with very good reason - that they can do so with impunity.7 Thus, entire sections of the prison of Zenica (one of the main cities of the FBiH) are controlled by gangs that use violence and threats and engage in racketeering and drug trafficking.8 This situation can be explained by a shortage of surveillance staff, significant overcrowding, the existence of blocks housing 60 people in shared dormitories without the presence of guards and, above all, the lack of separation of the various categories of detainees.9 For example, a single establishment might house persons in pre-trial detention, individuals convicted of serious crimes, women and juveniles. Thus, in 2009, the Sarajevo Remand Prison housed two juveniles in detention with adults whose only activity consisted of thirty minutes exercise per day.10 Institutions that visit the country's prisons generally report few allegations of abuse by members of the prison staff. According to human rights mediators, however, a small number of detainees have complained of ill-treatment: kicks or punches, slamming of doors during rest hours, verbal threats, humiliations, abusive use of antidrug tests, etc.11 The CPT also reports cases of violence, particularly beatings of detainees of the Sarajevo prison in a stairwell, outside the range of the surveillance cameras as reprisals for an attempted escape, and kicks, punches and blows inflicted on inmates during their transfer to the disciplinary wing of the Zenica prison, the transfer being conducted at night without the presence of the unit chief.12 Bosnian authorities recently adopted measures aimed at improving detention conditions, in particular the construction of new establishments and the renovation of existing structures.13
The War on Terrorism: Indefinite Detentions, Ill-treatment and Dangerous Returns

During the war, many citizens of Arab muslim countries came to fight alongside the Bosnian Muslims, particularly in groups of foreign mujahedeen or in the ranks of the Bosnian and Herzegovinian army. Some also joined humanitarian associations. Several among them stayed in the country after the conflict, and acquired its nationality or a permanent resident status. After the 11 September 2001 attacks, their presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina and their possible link to international terrorism have become a source of concern for Western intelligence services. Indeed, six of them were handed over to the United States and illegally transferred to Guantanamo, where they were subjected to torture and ill-treatment.17 In 2005, the authorities promulgated a law that called for a review of the manner in which Bosnian citizenship was obtained for those who did so through naturalization between April 1992 and January 2006. A commission for the review and revocation of naturalizations was set up, which revoked the Bosnian citizenship of 661 people18 on the basis that it was obtained illegally. These decisions were taken without the individuals concerned being heard and were not substantiated. Several people thus deprived of their nationality were then arrested and held at the Lukavica detention centre for foreigners, located in the suburbs of the capital, as they awaited their deportation.The law provides that when an expulsion measure is applied to a foreigner, he can be placed under supervision before being deported. The duration of detention is theoretically limited to thirty days, but can be extended to up to one hundred eighty days. Since 2008, a new legislative provision allows the authorities to exceptionally extend this supervision beyond this delay when the alien prevents his removal or when the alien cannot be removed for any other reason whatsoever.19 In practice, the law authorizes the detention of foreigners for an unlimited time without any charge being brought against them. Thus, on 6 October 2011, Syrian citizen Imad al-Hussein started his fourth year of detention, despite two decisions of the Bosnian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights demanding that his expulsion be postponed. Several other people at the same time began their second or third years of detention. In addition to the uncertainty regarding their release or their deportation date, which in itself constitutes inhuman treatment, certain detainees have reported physical violence (punches, kicks and clubbing). One stated he was hit by one of the centre police officers and suffered several broken ribs and others have declared they were hit for having dared to ask a guard a question.20 In March 2011, two of them, after
Police Violence
In 2007 and 2008, several sources expressed concern over the common resort to ill-treatment by police officers. In February 2008, Amnesty International noted that ill-treatment by members of the police forces appears to be disturbingly common.14 As for the CPT, it denounced violence committed during interrogations, consisting basically of kicks, punches and blows with batons to various parts of the body.15 Although there is little recent information on the human rights violations perpetrated by police officers, the situation seems to have evolved but little, if at all. The issue of human rights protection was notably absent from the preliminary talks on police reform, required by the European Union, which took place in 2008.16
134
135
having attempted to escape, complained of being beaten after being captured. One of them suffered severe injuries to the eye and had to be hospitalized three times. They were subsequently placed in solitary confinement*. In addition, the guards allegedly resort to punitive measures arbitrarily.21 In early October 2011, prisoners at the centre went on yet another hunger strike to denounce the duration and severity of their detention. Two thirds of those who were stripped of their nationality are of Algerian, Egyptian, Sudanese, Jordanian, Syrian, Tunisian or Turkish origin, and many fear persecutions if they are returned to their country of origin. All those thus stripped of their nationality who have initiated the process to obtain residency or seek asylum in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been denied. The decision to deprive people of their nationality is not open to administrative appeal. They can file complaints with a tribunal, but such complaints have no suspensive effect. Several among them have already been sent back to States where the practice of torture is common.

In practice, however, these provisions are rarely or poorly applied. Although no complete data regarding complaints, investigations, prosecutions and convictions of torture and abuse25 are available, detainees do not appear to be sufficiently well informed of the complaint mechanisms placed at their disposal,26 the effectiveness and impartiality of human rights mediators are debatable27 and, according to Amnesty International, prompt, independent, impartial and thorough investigations into ill-treatment are rarely conducted.28 Despite the 2008 adoption of a strategic plan on how to deal with war crimes,29 certain victims of the conflict, particularly women subjected to sexual violence and the families of the disappeared, are denied justice. Between 20,000 and 50,000 women are estimated to have been victims of rape or sexual assault during the war. Nevertheless, very few investigations have been opened, and very few prosecutions were initiated against the perpetrators. In September 2009, only 12 people were convicted for sexual violence as a war crime.30 Proceedings are particularly hindered by an inadequate judicial framework that is not in conformity with international law.31 Also, the vast majority of victims have received no reparation and receive no physical or psychological care. In November 2010, only 2,000 women received an allowance from the State based on their status as civilian victims of war.32 In addition, between 25,000 and 30,000 persons were victims of enforced disappearance* between 1992 and 1995. Some 10,000 to 13,000 of these are still missing. Despite the 2004 adoption of a law on enforced disappearances, by October 2011, the State's commitments to set up a database of disappeared persons and create a support fund for their families have still not been fulfilled, and the loved ones of disappeared persons are still waiting for adequate compensation and reparation for the suffering they have endured.33

Bosnia and Herzegovina ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture in 1993 without reservations. It also ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention in 2008, but has yet to implement the National Preventive Mechanism* (NPM) provided for in the treaty. The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and those of both entities prohibit the use of torture and ill-treatment. However, there exists no specific criminal offence under Bosnian law that criminalizes the practice of torture as defined by the United Nations Convention, and the RS's and Brcko District's legal definitions of torture are different from that of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina.22 In its review by the UN Committee Against Torture* (CAT) in November 2010, the Bosnian government committed to amending the Criminal Code and harmonizing the definition of torture in the federal State and entities laws.23 The legal texts call for adequate complaint and investigatory mechanisms. The department of the Public Prosecutor is required to launch an investigation in cases where torture or ill-treatment is suspected, and several agencies, both in the Ministries of the Interior of both entities and locally, allow citizens to denounce abuses committed by the police. There are also supervision and complaint systems for the prisons.24 In addition, victims of torture or abuse can file a complaint with human rights mediators.
[1] EUFOR, EUFOR Factsheet, http://www.euforbih.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15&Itemid=134. According to diplomatic sources, this force should be reduced by half (http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/ article/2011/10/10/l-ueva-reduire-sa-force-militaire-en-bosnie-de-moitie_1585235_3214.html). [2] European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2011-2012, 12 October 2011, 85 pages, p. 58-64, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CO M:2011:0666:FIN:EN:PDF. [3] European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Case of Sejdi and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, (Applications nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06), 22 December 2009, http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Finci&s essionid=87287111&skin=hudoc-en.
136
[4] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2010 Human Rights Report: Bosnia and Herzegovina, 08 April 2011, 38 pages, p. 4, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160181.pdf. [5] The Institution of Human Rights Ombudsmen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Special Report on Situation of Human Rights in the Institutions for Execution of Criminal Sanctions in BiH, Observations and Concerns by BiH Ombudsmen, 17 pages, http://www.ombudsmen.gov.ba/odjeli/englzatvori.pdf. [6] Ibidem, p. 9. [7] Council of Europe, Report to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), 31 March 2010, 39 pages, p. 13, http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/bih/2010-10-inf-eng.pdf. [8] Ibid., p. 12. [9] Idem. [10] Ibid., p. 17. [11] The Institution of Human Rights Ombudsmen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, op. cit., p. 9. [12] Council of Europe, op. cit., p. 11. [13] United Nations, Committee Against Torture, 45th session, Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture, Bosnia and Herzegovina, CAT/BIH/CO/2-5, 20 January 2011, 11 pages, p. 7, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/CAT.C.BIH. CO.2-5_en.pdf. [14] Amnesty International, Bosnia and Herzegovina Better keep quiet: ill-treatment by the police and in prisons, February 2008, 63 pages, p. 8, http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/asset/EUR63/001/2008/en/22efb9bd-d59d-11dc-8429-e9042f8eb6c4/ eur630012008eng.pdf. [15] Council of Europe, Report to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 19 to 30 March 2007, 14 October 2009, 75 pages, p. 12, http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/bih/2009-25-inf-eng.pdf. [16] Amnesty International, op. cit., p. 5. [17] Six Algriens auraient t torturs Guantnamo [Six Algerians allegedly tortured in Guantnamo], Algerie-dz.com, 17 March 2005, http://www.algerie-dz.com/article1705.html. [18] Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Report on the Status of Human Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Analysis for the period January-December 2010), 28 February 2011, 11 pages, p. 9, http://www.bh-hchr.org/reports. htm. [19] Migreurop, BH and European Union Responsibility for Violations of Fundamental Rights of Alien Detainees at the Lukavica Detention Centre, June 2011, 14 pages, p. 6, http://www.migreurop.org/IMG/pdf/Migreurop-Lukavicadoc-CPT-2.pdf. [20] Le camp dtrangers de Lukavica : mauvais traitements et grves de la faim [The Lukavica Detention Centre for Foreigners: Ill-Treatment and Hunger Strikes], BHinfo.fr, 27 January 2011, http://www.bhinfo.fr/le-camp-d-etrangers-delukavica,1542/. [21] Bosnia Herzegovina: isolation and police violence at Lukavica camp, Migreurop.org, 19 March 2011, http://www.migreurop.org/article1852.html. [22] United Nations, Committee Against Torture, op. cit., p. 2 and 3. [23] Id. [24] Amnesty International, Bosnia and Herzegovina Better keep quiet: ill-treatment by the police and in prisons, p. 43-45. [25] United Nations, Committee Against Torture, op. cit., p. 10. [26] Council of Europe, Report to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), CPT/Inf (2010) 10, 31 March 2010, 39 pages, p. 22, http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/bih/2010-10-inf-eng.pdf. [27] United Nations, Committee Against Torture, op. cit., p. 3. [28] Amnesty International, op. cit., p. 18. [29] National War Crimes Strategy, December 2008, http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC/pdf_state/War-CrimesStrategy-f-18-12-08.pdf. [30] Amnesty International, Whose Justice? The Women of Bosnia and Herzegovina are Still Waiting, 30 September 2009, 86 pages, p. 19, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR63/006/2009/en/8af5ed43-5094-48c9-bfab-1277b5132faf/ eur630062009eng.pdf. [31] United Nations, Committee Against Torture, op. cit., p. 3. [32] Amnesty International, Annual Report 2011, the state of the worlds human rights, Bosnia and Herzegovina, http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/bosnia-herzegovina/report-2011 [33] Trial, Written information for the follow-up to the concluding observations of the Committee against Torture on Bosnia and Herzegovinas combined second to fifth periodic reports (CAT/C/BIH/CO/2-5), October 2011, 52 pages, http://www2.ohchr.org/ english/bodies/cat/docs/followup/ngos/TRIAL_1_BosniaHerzegovina45.pdf.
138
139
MOLDOVA
In terms of human rights protection, important progress has been made with the ratification of key international human rights treaties and the adoption of reforms to align national law with international commitments. However, in practice, improvements are still needed to guarantee respect for the rule of law and for fundamental liberties.
PRACTICE OF TORTURE
Torture and abuse are common in Moldova, particularly in police stations and pretrial detention centres. In 2009, the authorities received 6,027 complaints of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, a significant increase from previous years.1 This phenomenon is not new: in 27 cases between 2005 and 2011, the European Court of Human Rights condemned Moldova for violations of Article 3 prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
BACKGROUND
Following the breadown of the Soviet Union, the Republic of Moldova, wedged between Romania and Ukraine, declared its independence on 27 August 1991 and chose to develop closer ties with Europe by becoming the first State party to the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) to join the Council of Europe in 1995. From a territorial point of view, Moldova faces separatism in Transnistria (or the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic), a region located along the border with Ukraine which declared its independence in December 1991 and has demonstrated its willingness to be part of Russia. Although not recognized by the international community, Transnistria disputes the sovereignty of Moldova and has its own governmental institutions and laws. It is economically and militarily supported by Russia. Besides being embroiled in this frozen conflict, Moldova has also experienced a period of high political instability since 2009. The results of the legislative elections of April 2009, which granted a new victory to the Communist Party in power since 2001, were strongly contested by the opposition and created a catalyst for a wave of protests that were violently repressed by the government. Over 300 persons were then arrested and placed in detention. Three others died in circumstances that remain unclear. New legislative elections, held in July 2009, were won by an alliance of liberal parties that held a sufficient number of seats to constitute a government but not enough to get a president elected. Early elections held in November 2010 did not resolve this deadlock. A new coalition of three political parties, the Alliance for European Integration, collected 59 of the 101 Parliamentary seats, two short of what is needed to elect a president. Despite this, a coalition government was put in place and took office in January 2011.
Victims
At least 312 people were questioned following the April 2009 protests, including 19 juveniles, a majority of whom were victim of ill-treatment and sometimes torture at the time of their arrest, while being transported to a detention site, or during pre-trial detention.2 Reported abuse consisted mainly of punches, kicks, beatings with rubber truncheons, wooden sticks, blows with rifle butts, or other hard blunt objects.3 Some individuals were also the victims of death threats and humiliating treatment. Thus, Oxana Radu was arrested during the night of 7-8 April and taken to the central police station in Chisinau, where she was forced to undress, perform knee bends under the insults and threats of a police officer, then placed in a cell for two days without food or water and without access to a lawyer.4 Beyond the exceptional framework of post-electoral violence, torture and ill-treatment are common for persons accused of criminal offences, during police custody and during interrogations. In addition, such people are often deprived of fundamental protection guarantees, such as access to a lawyer or doctor, particularly early on during the detention. In addition, ethnic (particularly the Roma), sexual and religious minorities are more often victims of bullying, harassment or verbal or physical violence by police members.5
140
141
Finally, torture and ill-treatment are frequent in the armed forces and are particularly encouraged during the hazing of new recruits. In the Transnistria region, officers pressured recruits not to divulge these practices, to avoid tarnishing the army's reputation.6

Torture and ill-treatment are widespread in premises where people are held in police custody, particularly in the police stations of Comrat and Chisinau.7 In a survey conducted in 2010, 40% of men and 21% of women who had been questioned or detained by the police declared they had been hit or mistreated at the time.8 Numerous acts of torture are also committed in pre-trial detention centres under the supervision of the Ministry of the Interior. Their transfer to the Ministry of Justice's authority, recommended by international bodies and at one point considered by the Moldavian government, seem to have been abandoned.9 In addition, detention conditions in these centres are often difficult and inadequate for long periods of confinement. Notably in the police stations of Balti, Comrat and Chisinau, inmates are held in cramped cells, without air or natural light for weeks, even months.10 Despite significant efforts to improve the situation in prison establishments, under the authority of the Ministry of Justice, detention conditions remain worrisome. Two of the country's 18 prisons were recently renovated. Overcrowding and problems related to ventilation, hygiene and access to health care persist in the other places.11 Attempted escapes are severely punished, and inmates sentenced to life imprisonment are placed in isolation for thirty-six hours a day.12 There is also within the facilities an informal inmate hierarchy, a relic of the Soviet era: some detainees impose their law by resorting to threats and abuse, including sexual abuse. In numerous prisons, staff members use this situation to maintain order. In Bender's Prison Centre No. 2, certain guards not only allegedly turned a blind eye to physical violence between detainees but also joined in, mostly at night.13 Although there are few allegations of acts of torture perpetrated by jail employees, several people detained in Prisons No. 8 and No. 12 (located in the zone controlled by the de facto authorities of the Transnistrian region) stated they were subjected to threats and intimidation to force them to withdraw complaints they had filed with the prison authorities. Psychiatric institutions are sometimes used as detention centres, and some accused individuals spend close to three weeks there, officially for evaluations of their mental health.14 According to certain sources, autistic children are placed in such institutions where they are tortured, tied to their beds or beaten.15
Despite a certain lack of transparency, the situation in the Transnistrian region is overall more worrisome than in the rest of the country. During a visit conducted in July 2010, the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) of the Council of Europe was not authorized to interact privately with detainees. In October 2010, 90 prisoners at the Tiraspol pre-trial detention centre staged a hunger strike to protest the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment to which they were subjected, reporting arbitrary arrests, torture, and denial of access to medical care.16 In this region, several police forces have been singled out for their practice of torture and ill-treatment, particularly the Department for Combating Organized Crime and Corruption of the Ministry of the Interior of the self-proclaimed authorities of Transnistria, the Drug Control Department of this same ministry,17 as well as intelligence services.18 On 29 March 2011, Vitalie Eriomenco was arrested at his home by Department for Combating Organized Crime and Corruption members, interrogated for ten hours without access to a lawyer, and subjected to ill-treatment to get him to confess to having embezzled 12,000 dollars. He was subsequently held in Tiraspol's Prison No. 3, under deplorable conditions and, despite serious health problems, was not authorized to receive appropriate medical treatment, nor was he allowed to see his family, despite having filed six requests for this purpose.19

The forms of torture most commonly reported20 are severe beatings, blows with kicks, punches, rubber truncheons or baseball bats on all or part of the body, and with various other objects (cables, firearm butts, bottles filled with water), but also electroshocks, asphyxiation with a gas mask, insertion of pins under nails, walk down the hall of death (running a gauntlet of police officers down a corridor). Police officers opt for methods that leave no visible marks, particularly by using rags to wrap the objects used. Most of the time, police-conducted torture and ill-treatment seek to extract confessions or obtain information in criminal cases. Despite allegations of torture, these statements are generally accepted by the courts. Thus, four men arrested in March 2009 during the investigation of an armed robbery complained of the repeated use of torture and abuse by the officers who interrogated them to get them to confess (beating, blows with a water-filled bottle, suffocation by obstructing their mouth with duct tape and then blocking their nasal passages, mock execution). Although the court noted this information, the confessions were admitted as evidence and the four men were convicted on 30 June 2010 and given sentences of ten to thirteen years imprisonment.
142
143
A study by the Soros Foundation also draws a parallel between the high level of corruption in law enforcement agencies and ill-treatment, suggesting that the extortion of bribes might play an important role in explaining the abuses committed by the police.21 Sometimes, ill-treatment only seem to be motivated by an urge to humiliate persons in position of inferiority. For example, in July 2010, a representative of the Balti police was convicted of having brutally beaten a man in January 2010 because he was drunk. During the events of April 2009, the excessive use of force seems to have been employed as a political tool to inspire fear in the hearts of the people and discourage protesters from standing up against the regime.22

Despite this legal framework, impunity remains a significant problem. The number of investigations carried out is very low compared to the large number of reported cases of torture and ill-treatment, and they rarely result in prosecutions or convictions.23 The authorities in charge of investigating allegations of torture drag procedures on. In October 2009, C. S. was transferred from Prison No. 13 with contusions on his face and filed a complaint stating he had been hit by an agent of the Straseni detention centre. No investigation was opened, however, until after the MHRC intervened.24 Those who report incidents of torture or ill-treatment, such as doctors and lawyers, are subjected to intimidation and reprisals.25 In all cases observed by Amnesty International, the police officers involved in torture or abuse remained at their posts during the investigations and, in certain cases, the victims were the targets of pressure.26 The functioning of judicial institutions also represents an obstacle to impartial justice: the authorities responsible for prosecutions are also in charge of controlling the proper handling of investigations,27 and the burden of proof lies on the presumed victim.28 When sentences are pronounced, they are not proportional to the seriousness of the crime committed.29 Some persons who do get convicted even manage to avoid their punishment. Thus, two police officers sentenced in November 2007 to six years in prison for having tortured Viorica Plate were still free in late 2010 and had not begun to serve their sentence.30 Justice is also delayed for the events of April 2009, despite political commitments made at the highest level. In July 2011, investigations were still underway and only one conviction had been obtained.31 A national commission established in October 2009 to shed light on the facts discovered in August 2010 that the Ministry of the Interior had withheld video recordings filmed by certain agents during the events.

Moldova has ratified the main treaties banning torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, both at the international level (including the United Nations Convention against Torture and its Optional Protocol) and at the regional level (in particular, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which authorizes visits by the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture). Domestically, Article 24(2) of the Moldovan Constitution outlaws torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In 2005, the Republic of Moldova modified its Penal Code to introduce Article 309, which defined torture in conformity with the Convention against Torture and specifies the scale of sentences for those responsible for these crimes. In the Transnistrian region, however, the ban on torture is covered in the the Constitution but the Penal Code contains a definition of torture that does not comply with that of the Convention against Torture. Since November 2010, prosecutors specialized in the treatment of torture allegations were installed in all of the provinces. Following the 2008 ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, an Advisory Council was established as a National Preventive Mechanism* at the Moldovan Human Rights Centre (MHRC), a national institution composed of four Parliamentary mediators.
[1] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2010 Human Rights Report, Moldova, 8 April 2011, 53 pages, p. 7, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160203.pdf. [2] Council of Europe, Report by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe Following his visit to Moldova, 25 to 28 April 2009, July 2009, 17 pages. [3] Idem. [4] Amnesty International, Moldova Briefing to the Committee against Torture, October 2009, 13 pages, p. 5, http://195.234.175.160/en/library/asset/EUR59/007/2009/en/e30f1072-4d1d-4856-a7ce-1ff58c0c3ea9/eur590072009en.pdf. [5] United Nations, Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review Working Group, Summary Prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in accordance with Paragraph 15(c) of the Annex to Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1 of the Human Rights Council, Republic of Moldova, A/HRC/WG.6/12/MDA/3, 22 July 2011, 16 pages, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/ UNDOC/GEN/G11/152/25/PDF/G1115225.pdf?OpenElement [6] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, op. cit., p. 9.
144
[7] United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Manfred Nowak: mission to the Republic of Moldova, A/HRC/10/44/Add.3, 12 February 2009, 58 pages, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/107/71/PDF/G0910771.pdf?OpenElement [8] Soros Foundation Moldova, Victimisation and public confidence survey, Benchmarks for the development of criminal justice policy in Moldova, December 2010, 38 pages, p. 35, http://www.soros.md/files/publications/documents/Victimisation%20Survey. pdf. [9] Council of Europe, Report to the Moldovan Government on the visit to Moldova carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 27 to 31 July 2009, CPT/Inf (2011)8, 3 March 2011, 37 pages, p. 11, http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/mda/2009-37-inf-eng.pdf. [10] United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Manfred Nowak: mission to the Republic of Moldova, op. cit., p. 14. [11] U. S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, op. cit., p. 10. [12] Ibidem. [13] Council of Europe, op. cit., p. 11. [14] United Nations, Human Rights Council, op. cit., p. 15. [15] United Nations, Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review Working Group, op. cit., p. 5. [16] U. S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, op. cit., p. 8. [17] World Organisation Against Torture, Republic of Moldova: Fear for the safety of Mr. Ostap Popovskyi_Denial of adequate medical care, October 2011, http://www.omct.org/urgent-campaigns/urgent-interventions/moldova/2011/10/d21473/. [18] U. S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, op. cit., p. 8. [19] World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), Republic of Moldova: Follow-up of the case MDA 170811, Conditions of detention amounting to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment / Lack of adequate medical attention / Fear for the safety, 17 August 2011, http://www.omct.org/urgent-campaigns/urgent-interventions/moldova/2011/10/d21453/. [21] Soros Foundation Moldova, op. cit., p. 35. [22] Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims Memoria, op. cit., p. 5. [23] United Nations, Committee Against Torture, 43rd Session, Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture: Republic of Moldova, CAT/C/MDA/CO/2, 29 March 2010, 12 pages, p. 8, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/co/CAT.C.MDA. CO.2.pdf. [24] U. S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, op. cit., p. 7. [25] United Nations, Committee Against Torture, op. cit., p. 8. [26] Amnesty International, Torture, discrimination and impunity, Amnesty International Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review, October 2011, 31 July 2011, 10 pages, p. 5, http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/info/EUR59/001/2011/en. [27] United Nations, Committee Against Torture, op. cit., p. 9. [28] U. S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, op. cit,. p. 4. [29] United Nations, Committee Against Torture, op. cit., p. 8. [30] Amnesty International, Annual Report 2011. The state of the world's human rights: Moldova April 2011, http://www.amnesty. org/en/region/moldova/report-2011. [31] Amnesty International, Torture, discrimination and impunity, Amnesty International Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review, p. 5.
146
147
UNITED KINGDOM
In February 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) referred to at least 20 suspected cases.3 Such allegations are directed at MI5 (or Secret Service), the security agency responsible for national intelligence and answerable to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and MI6 (or Secret Intelligence Service), answerable to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and responsible for external threats, and mainly concern their collaboration with the CIA and the FBI. MI5 and MI6 officers allegedly took part in the illegal transfer of suspected terrorists to third countries and in enhanced interrogation sessions, especially in Bangladesh, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Pakistan.4 A number of British nationals and residents who had been imprisoned in Guantanamo have also named MI5 and MI6 as accomplices in the secret detention* and the abuse they suffered. For example, Binyam Mohamed, suspected of terrorism and arrested in Pakistan in 2002, was detained in secret locations in Morocco and Afghanistan before being imprisoned at the US naval base in Cuba. Following his release and transfer to the UK in February 2009, he claimed that while he was in Morocco, his torturers received questions and documents from a MI5 agent. Like other former Guantanamo inmates, he sued the British government and obtained compensation in November 2010. These proceedings gave way to the disclosure of thousands of classified documents by the High Court of Justice in July 2010. According to them, as soon as January 2002, the Blair administration knew of the allegations of torture on British nationals committed by members of the US and other countries intelligence services and armed forces. For instance, instructions sent on 11 January 2002 to British officers serving in Afghanistan recognized that prisoners suspected of belonging to al-Qaeda could [potentially] not be treated in accordance with the applicable standards by the American military. They nonetheless concluded that given that [they were] not under [their] control, the law [did not require them] to intervene to stop this. Furthermore, this document enabled British agents to question individuals who had been tortured by their foreign counter-parts, and to commit unlawful acts, provided they had first obtained their superior's or the relevant ministry's authorization.5 On 6 July 2010, to put an end to the controversy, the newly appointed Prime Minister David Cameron issued new guidelines6 for army and intelligence services members deployed overseas. They must not interrogate imprisoned individuals, seek to obtain information from those under the custody of third countries, or request for an individual to be detained by a foreign government where they know or believe that these situations will lead to torture. Where there is a serious risk, they may take action by obtaining either the guarantee from foreign agents that they will minimize this risk or by obtaining the authorisation of the Ministry they report to. Moreover,
BACKGROUND
Long a pioneer in the human rights promotion, the United Kingdom1 has ratified the main international and regional instruments prohibiting acts of torture and illtreatment, and has also prompted other countries to follow suit. However, since the attacks of 11 September 2001 in the United States and the 7 July 2005 bombings in London, successive governments have implemented a counter-terrorism policy contrary to the absolute ban on torture and have allegedly ignored or supported the abuses committed against detainees overseas. Between 1959 and 2010, the United Kingdom was twice condemned by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for breaching the right to life and 15 times for violating the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.2 Some of these rulings concerned extrajudicial arrests and detention measures, torture techniques, and the shoot to kill strategy used by British forces during the armed conflict in Northern Ireland. The most recent cases relate to anti-terror actions, abuses committed in Iraq, and forced removals of foreign nationals to countries where they run the risk of being tortured.
PRACTICE OF TORTURE Torture and the Fight against Terrorism

Numerous human rights organizations have spoken out against the United Kingdom's involvement in the United States extraordinary rendition* program and in torture of British residents or nationals held abroad, in the name of the War on Terror.
148
149
the guidelines allow the use of hooding, a technique banned by many international instruments, when it does not pose a risk to the detainee's physical or mental health and is necessary for security reasons, notions which are both vague and likely to lead to abuse. Human rights organizations have deemed the document incomplete and contrary to both the UK's international and domestic obligations.7 As for the independent inquiry which was announced that same day into the role British officials might have played in the torture and other human rights violations against prisoners held abroad, and which was to be launched before 2012, it was plagued by controversy since its inception. The Head of Government has warned that some information would have to remain classified in order to avoid jeopardizing information-sharing agreements with allied countries, and particularly with the United States. Thus, the protocol published on 6 July 2011 by the commission of inquiry,8 known as the Gibson commission, not only stipulates that the disclosure of documents will require the authorization of the authorities, but further that presumed victims and their lawyers may not question the heads of MI5 and MI6, that key hearings will be held behind closed doors, and that foreign intelligence agencies will not be questioned. Consequently, given the lack of credibility and transparency necessary for the establishment of the truth,9 ten NGOs decided to boycott this inquiry. This mistrust is all the more justified as the Cameron administration is not spared by accusations. Indeed, according to the complaint he lodged before the High Court of Justice, Kenyan national Omar Awadh Omar was kidnapped in September 2010 in Nairobi and illegally transferred to Uganda, to the police's Rapid Intervention Unit. This is infamous for its abuses and collaboration with the U.S. federal police in combating terrorism throughout that region.10 Accused of having organized the attacks carried out the previous July in the Ugandan capital, he was allegedly mainly questioned over his links with Somali Islamists and tortured by MI5 officers.11 Beyond complicity, U.K. intelligence services members, along with armed forces personnel deployed in Iraq, were directly involved in acts of torture. From the moment the country went to war in 2003, soldiers have been accused of mistreatment and abuse, including rapes and physical assault.12 In May 2003, Iraqi detainees were beaten, forced to simulate sex, and one of them was suspended to the prongs of a forklift at Camp Breadbasket, near Basra.13 In May 2004, 20 Iraqis died at another British base. According to relatives, they were arrested and later executed, while others were tortured.14 Published on 8 September 2011, the inquiry report15 into the circumstances surrounding the death of Iraqi Baha Mousa in September 2003 after thirty-six hours of detention and torture in a UK-run detention centre in Basra reveals that the victim died from his 93 injuries and deplorable physical condition. These were the result of the violent
and cowardly abuse and assaults inflicted by his jailers.16 More importantly, the document indicates that the soldiers resorted to five interrogation methods that have been banned by the government since 1972: hooding; forcible adoption of painful and stress-inducing positions; sonic torture (through exposition to a deafening sound or to white noise, i.e. a noise made up of all frequencies with a similar volume, like the snow effect on a untuned television set), sleep and food deprivation. Without concluding to the existence of a culture of violence within the army, the commission of inquiry's chairman nonetheless denounced the officers ignorance or indifference towards the fact that these techniques were illegal, together with the systematic and corporate failure of the Ministry of Defense to provide clear and coherent instructions on the treatment of prisoners of war. The government committed itself to follow 72 of the 73 recommendations contained in the report, but refused to ban harshing technique, whereby an interrogator screams at a detainee's face. In 2003, according to documents discovered by Human Rights Watch in Libya,17 MI6 allegedly carried out the extraordinary rendition of a suspected Libyan terrorist back to his country, where he was at risk of torture, in collusion with the intelligence services of Muammar Gaddafi. Sami al-Saadi, a former British resident who had been living as a refugee in China since 1993, was invited to fly to Hong Kong to discuss his potential return to the UK with a diplomat. Upon arriving at the airport, he, his wife and his four children were arrested, put on a special flight back to Tripoli, and placed in detention. Sami al Saadi claims he was beaten and subjected to threats and electric shocks for six years. The Gibson Commission stated that it will also look into these allegations.
Dangerous Returns
With the "War on Terror" as their pretext, British authorities have on several occasions forcibly removed foreigners deemed threats to national security to countries where they faced risks of torture. The United Kingdom has only leant on diplomatic assurances* to negotiate formal memoranda of agreement with Algeria, Ethiopia, Jordan, Lebanon and Libya. Despite criticism,18 the current government wants to conclude new agreements19 and relies on the monitoring system established with local human rights organizations to prevent problems. However, on 25 June 2010, the High Court of Justice approved a moratorium on forced returns of terrorist suspects to the Afghan National Directorate of Security, as a result of genuine risks of them being tortured.20
150
151
In March 2010, the ECHR condemned Great Britain following the December 2008 transfer of two Iraqis suspected of murdering British soldiers at the beginning of the war and who had been held in UK custody for four years back to the Iraqi authorities. Faisal al-Saadoon and Khalef Hussain Mufdhi had been sentenced by their country's justice system for war crimes, an offence punishable by death. The Court concluded that the well-founded fear of being executed amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.21 Immigration services also forcibly remove asylum seekers, such as the Sri Lankan Tamils,22 to countries where they may be subjected to abuse. Thus, Iranian Amir Sharifi traveled to the UK on a student visa in 2007, where he converted to Christianity. After his asylum request was rejected, on the grounds that his new religion was just a pretext, he was forcibly sent back to the Islamist Republic of Iran in 2010, in spite of his church's protests and the referral of the case to the UN Special Rapporteur* on Torture.23 Moreover, the agency in charge of border control occasionally relies on private security firms to accompany asylum seekers during their deportation. Their poorly-trained employees can use excessive force or non-authorized or dangerous restraint methods, such as crude straps and belts,24 which have caused serious injury (nerve damage, contusions, and fractures)25 on numerous occasions. In October 2010, Jimmy Mubenga, a 46-year-old Angolan, was forcibly placed on a plane back to Luanda. He lost consciousness on board after having been pinned against his seat by three guards. He died shortly after his evacuation to a hospital.26

The United Kingdom has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and was one of the first countries to sign its Optional Protocol. However, it does not directly transpose all of the rights set out in the ICCPR, and is the only European Union member State that has not adhered to the first Optional Protocol to this Covenant. Under section 134 of the 1988 Criminal Justice Act, torture is a crime of universal jurisdiction*: A public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever his nationality, commits the offence of torture if in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties. This is the basis upon which Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London in October 1998. The 2000 Human Rights Act seeks to give further effect to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. However, although the authorities maintain that evidence obtained under torture is not admissible in civil or criminal proceedings, Paragraph 4 of Article 134 of the Criminal Justice Act allows for torture perpetrators to defend themselves by claiming they acted pursuant to legitimate authority, justification or excuse. Paragraph 5 further provides a possible defence where the act is unlawful under British law but authorized under foreign law. In a recent case regarding allegations that the government was using evidence obtained under duress before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission,28 the House of Lords upheld the prohibition on taking into account such evidence, even in terrorism-related cases. However, the majority ruled that the burden of proof fell to the plaintiff. Hi has to demonstrate that such evidence had been more likely than not obtained under torture, which is a difficult condition to fulfill.29
Violence attributable to the Security Forces

Acts of ill-treatment and torture are not widespread within law enforcement bodies. Nonetheless, the Independent Police Complaints Commission received 4,015 complaints for oppressive conduct or harassment between 2009 and 2010, and 3,530 such complaints between 2008 and 2009.27 The way public order was maintained during the April 2009 anti-G20 protests in London was particularly questioned. In one instance, 47-year-old newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson was killed concurrently with the rallies, after having been violently pushed to the ground by an anti-riot police member. Despite the broadcast of a video clearly showing the officer hitting him for no reason, the Crown Prosecutor's office dismissed the case for lack of evidence. In May 2011, a parallel commission of inquiry noted the excessive and unreasonable use of force and allowed for the reopening of the case. Charged with homicide, the policeman had not still faced justice in November 2011.

Over two years after the withdrawal of its troops, the United Kingdom still seems reluctant to prosecute soldiers accused of torture and ill-treatment in Iraq, despite the increase in allegations and the November 2010 creation of an ad hoc commission of inquiry (Iraq Historic Allegations Team). In December 2010, the High Court of Justice
152
153
rejected the request for a public investigation submitted by 128 Iraqis who claimed to have been subjected to abuses at the hands of British soldiers between 2003 and 2008.30 The vast majority of complaints have not resulted in prosecutions. In fact, the country was condemned by the ECHR for the third time in July 2011 for violating the right to life by failing to investigate the suspicious deaths of six Iraqi civilians in 2003.31 In light of the revelations contained in the report on the death of Baha Mousa, the soldiers involved should be brought before a civilian criminal court. The case, already tried in a martial court in 2007, resulted in the acquittal of six of the seven persons indicted, and the sentencing of Corporal Daniel Payne, the first soldier found guilty of war crimes, to one year in jail. The decision to prosecute these individuals would demonstrate the will of the authorities to investigate the numerous allegations of human rights violations attributed to the armed forces and put an end to the reign of impunity.
[17] HRW, Secret Intelligence Documents Discovered in Libya, 9 September 2011, http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/09/08/ secret- intelligence-documents-discovered-libya; Tripoli files-documents, Guardian.co.uk, 9 September 2011, http://www. guardian. co.uk/world/2011/sep/09/how-mi6-family-gaddafi-jail; How MI6 deal sent family to Gaddafi's jail, Guardian.co.uk, 9 September 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/09/how-mi6-family-gaddafi-jail. [18] United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland, 30 July 2008, 8 pages, 12, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/433/43/PDF/ G0843343.pdf?OpenElement. [19] Secretary of State for Home Department, Review of counterterrorism and security powers-Findings and Recommendations, 26 January 2011, 43 pages, p. 34, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/counterterrorism/review-of-ct-security-powers/ review-findings-and-rec?view=Binary. [20] Afghan detainees must be safeguarded against abuse, says high court, Guardian.co.uk, 25 June 2010, http://www.guardian. co.uk/uk/2010/jun/25/afghan-detainees-safeguard-high-court. [21] ECHR, Case of Al-Saadoon & Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 61498/08), 2 March 2010, http://cmiskp.echr.coe. int/tkp197/view.aspitem=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=61498/08&sessionid=78450922&skin=hudoc-en. [22] Vingt-six Sri-Lankais rfugis au Royaume-Uni ont t expulses [26 Sri Lankan refugees in the UK have been expelled], Rfi.fr, 18 June 2011, http://www.rfi.fr/europe/20110618-vingt-six-sri-lankais-refugies-royaume-uni-ont-ete-expulses. [23] United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E. Mndez, A/HRC/16/52/Add.1, 1 March 2011, 575 pages, p. 510, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/ bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A.HRC.16.52.Add.1_EFSonly.pdf. [24] Amnesty presents damning report on security firms treatment of deportees, Guardian.co.uk, 7 July 2011, http://www. guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/07/amnesty-security-treatment-deportees-overhaul. [25] Birnberg Peirce & Partners, Medical Justice and the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns, Outsourcing abuse The use and misuse of state-sanctioned force during the detention and removal of asylum seekers, 14 July 2008, 68 pages, p. 2, http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/reports/outsourcing%20abuse.pdf. [26] Jimmy Mubenga: security firm G4S may face charges over death, Guardian.co.uk, 16 March 2011, http://www.guardian. co.uk/uk/2011/mar/16/mubenga-g4s-face-charges-death?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487. [27] Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), Police Complaint: Statistics for England and Wales, 2009/2010, 20 pages, p. 11, http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/stats.aspx. [28] HRW, No Questions Asked, Intelligence Cooperation with Countries that Torture, 28 June 2010, 62 pages, p. 31,http://www. hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/ct0610webwcover.pdf. [29] House of Lords, The Lords of appeal for Judgment in the cause A (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (2004) A and others (Appellants) (FC) and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (Conjoined Appeals), 8 December 2005, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ ldjudgmt/jd051208/aand.pdf. [30] REDRESS, Single Iraq Inquiry, Ali Zaki Mousa and others v. Secretary of State for Defense, http://www.redress.org/casedocket/single-iraq-inquiry. [31] ECHR, Case of Al-Skeini and others v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 55721/07), 7 July 2010, http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/ tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=55721/07&sessionid=85334591&skin=hudoc-en.
[1] Unless specific reference is made to Northern Ireland, this summary is basically concerned with the situation in Great Britain (Wales, Scotland and England). [2] European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Violation by Article and Country 1959-2010, 31 December 2010, http://www.echr. coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/2B783BFF-39C9-455C-B7C7-F821056BF32A/0/Tableau_de_violations_19592010_ENG.pdf. [3] Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Urgent review needed of allegations of Britons held abroad, 20 February 2010, http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/2010/february/urgent-review-needed-of-allegations-of-tortureof-britons-held- abroad-says-commission/. [4] Amnesty International, Report 2010: Human Rights in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/uk/report-2010. [5] British government's secret interrogation policy, Guardian.co.uk, 4 August 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/ interactive/2011/aug/04/mi6-torture-interrogation-policy-document. [6] Her Majesty's Government (HMG), Consolidated Guidance to Intelligence Officers and Service Personnel on the Detention and Interviewing of Detainees Overseas, and on the Passing and Receipt of Intelligence Relating to Detainees, July 2010, 16 pages, http://www.parliament.uk/deposits/depositedpapers/2011/DEP2011-1796.pdf. [7] EHRC, Commission to argue that Government guidance violates the law, 27 June 2011, http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/ news/2011/june/commission-to-argue-that-government-torture-guidance-violates-the-law/ [8] The Detainee Inquiry-HMG, Protocol for the Detainee Inquiry, 6 July 2010, http://www.bahamousainquiry.org/report/index.htm. [9] The AIRE Centre, Amnesty International, British Irish Rights Watch, Cageprisoners, Freedom from Torture, Human Rights Watch (HRW), Justice, Liberty, Redress, Reprieve, Letter to the Detainee Inquiry, 3 August 2011, http://reprieve.org.uk/static/ downloads/2011_08_03_PUB_NGO_withdrawal_from_Detainee_Inquiry_letter.pdf. [10] Human Rights Watch (HRW), Uganda: Torture, Extortion, Killings by Police Unit, 23 March 2011, http://www.hrw.org/ news/2011/03/23/uganda-torture-extortion-killings-police-unit. [11] Kampala bomb suspect sues UK government over alleged torture, Daily Monitor, 21 August 2011, http://www.monitor.co.ug/ News/National/-/688334/1222684/-/bjwu9oz/-/. [12] Amnesty International, Beyond Abu Ghraib: Detention and torture in Iraq, 6 March 2006, 48 pages, http://www.amnesty.org/ en/library/asset/MDE14/001/2006/en/a2b9a7ed-d46e-11dd-8743-d305bea2b2c7/mde140012006en.pdf. [13] Two soldiers guilty of Iraq abuse, BBC.com, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4290435.stm [14 Ouverture en Grande-Bretagne dune enqute sur des morts et des tortures de civils irakiens [Inquiry launched in Great Britain into deaths and torture of Iraqi civilians], Nouvelobs.com, 9 March 2010, http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualite/ monde/20100309.FAP2964/ouverture-en-grande-bretagne-d-une-enquete-sur-des-morts-et-des-tortures-de-civils-irakiens. html. [15] The Baha Mousa Public Inquiry, The report of the Baha Mousa Inquiry, 8 September 2011, 1,366 pages, http://www.bahamousainquiry.org/report/index.htm. [16] Ibidem, p. 1287.
155
MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA

Algeria . Bahrain . Morocco and Western Sahara . Palestinian Territories . Turkey .
156
157
INTRODUCTION
On 17 December 2010, Mohammed Bouazizi, a young unemployed Tunisian street vendor, committed suicide by setting himself on fire after his produce cart had been seized by the Sidi Bouzid police. This desperate act turned out to be the spark that ignited the country and, later on, a large part of the Arab world. Less than a month later, on 14 January, Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali fled the country, leading to the fall of an authoritarian regime that had lasted twentythree years. The protests soon spread to Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain, all of which were already suffering from deep social unrest, while other countries in the region were going through more or less continual turmoil. In November 2011, the outcome of these uprisings was mixed, to say the least. In Tunisia, the democratic transition seems promising, despite the law enforcement agencies' resort to violence to stifle many demonstrators and the regular use of torture and ill-treatment against people arrested for political reasons or for common offences. Some rare investigations into the acts of torture committed during the reign of Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali have tentatively been launched, but overall, impunity largely prevails, even for crimes perpetrated during and after the revolution. In Egypt, the political transformations have more in common with a coup dtat than a revolution. On 12 September, despite having promised to repeal the law on the state of emergency, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) extended the scope of that law to other offences such as attempts against the right to work, the disruption of traffic, or even the spreading of false rumours. This measure is but one more element of a repressive policy implemented by the army since the start of the revolution. Even before Hosni Mubarak's departure, soldiers had arrested hundreds of civilians suspected of having participated in or supported the demonstrations. Many of them were tortured with complete impunity. According to figures provided by the SCAF itself, on 5 September, nearly 12,000 civilians had been brought before military courts since the start of the protest movement, which is more than the number of people brought before those same courts during the thirty years of Mubarak's regime.
TURKEY
ankara 72.7 m
MOROCCO
rabat 31.9 m
ALGERIA
algier 35.4 m
PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES
WESTERN SAHARA
BAHRAIN
manama 807 000 hab.
1.6 million in the Gaza Strip and 2.5 millions in the West Bank according to July 2010 CIA estimates.
158
159
In Libya, the population was only able to oust their dictator through a civil war, at a cost of thousands of victims. The new Libya, whose liberation was proclaimed by the National Transitional Council (NTC) on 23 October, has had to face up to numerous challenges, among which is the necessary fight against impunity for serious crimes committed by the forces of Muammar Gaddafi's regime, as well as by NTC supporters who were probably guilty of torture and extrajudicial executions. In Yemen, peaceful gatherings demanding the resignation of President Ali Abdullah Saleh started in mid-January, initially in Sanaa and later throughout the country. They were started by students, but the various factions of the political opposition soon joined in. As the demonstrations increased in size, the repression intensified, peaking in violence on 18 March, when 52 demonstrators were shot dead by snipers. New prominent Yemeni tribal and political figures then joined the demonstrations and did not hesitate to use firearms to respond to the attacks by the regime's security forces, despite the will of most protestors to remain peaceful. Ten months after the start of the popular uprising, the Gulf Cooperation Council had still not managed to negotiate a crisis-exit plan with the parties to the conflict. Violent confrontations are still going on, and several hundreds of people have already died, with thousands more injured. The death toll is even greater in Syria where, since the start of the protest movement in March, over 3,500 people have died and thousands have been injured by the security forces, military and militia forces loyal to the Bashar al-Assad's regime who have not hesitated to use heavy weapons to quash the demonstrations. Most of the thousands of reporters, bloggers, political opponents, human rights defenders and even simple demonstrators who had been arrested were tortured, with dozens of victims dying as a result. So far, the extreme violence used by the authorities has not managed to discourage the regime's opponents from demonstrating. In Bahrain, on the other hand, protest movements are now more sporadic than they were in the first quarter of 2011, when thousands of people took to the streets of the country's main towns and cities to demand greater freedom and an end to the governing Sunni minority's discrimination against the Shiite majority. From the onset, the security and armed forces acted very violently, causing over 40 victims. Hundreds of people suspected of having participated in the demonstrations or of supporting demonstrators were arrested and subjected to ill-treatment and even torture, by soldiers and members of the security forces. Dozens of civilians were sentenced to long prison terms by the National Security Court or by civil courts because of their opposition to the government. Although disturbances have decreased, the regime continues with the judicial harassment of its opponents. In Iraq, attacks led by the security forces against demonstrators have resulted in at least 12 deaths. The demonstrations against corruption and the lack of public services, which have become more frequent in the country since 2010, intensified after the
start of the Arab Spring and particularly on 25 February, with the organisation of the Day of Rage. Reporters covering the demonstrations were specifically targeted by the Baghdad and Kurdistan authorities. In addition to the unfair legal proceedings of which they were victims, reporters are frequently beaten by or with the consent of members of the security forces. In Algeria and Morocco, the leaders promises of reform and the often very violent dispersal of demonstrations got the better of the vague revolutionary yearnings. In other countries in the region, the fear that the Arab Spring might spread led to leaders imposing heavy limits on freedoms of expression and assembly. Political opponents, reporters, bloggers and human rights defenders were particularly threatened. Human rights violations, now justified by the fear of the spread of revolution, only added to the violations associated with the more classical issues of protection of the States national security and territorial integrity. Thus, whether in Saudi Arabia or in Morocco, in Israel or in Lebanon, the "War on Terror" continues to legitimise serious attacks on human rights. Just as in Morocco, Turkey, Iran, Iraq or even Syria, the demands of minority populations were used as an excuse for arrests, arbitrary detention, torture, ill-treatment and prosecution, often before special tribunals.
Save for Egypt and Tunisia, which are discussed below, the torture phenomenon has seen no significant evolution in the three other countries investigated in our previous report, and impunity still prevails. In Lebanon and Israel, the authorities are increasingly harassing human rights defenders who stand up for victims of torture and other serious crimes committed by the security forces. In Iran, there continues to be intense repression against a wide range of targets: lawyers, artists, human rights and women's rights defenders, political opponents, members of ethnic (Kurds, Azeris, Balochi) and religious (Christians, Dervishes) minorities, who are often arrested, poorly treated or tortured, and then sentenced to long terms, or even to death, at the end of unfair trials.
160
161
ALGERIA
PRACTICE OF TORTURE
It is very difficult to get statements from torture victims. They are reluctant to disclose the abuses or ill-treatment they have suffered because of a lack of confidence in the justice system and, above all, the fear of being tortured again or of being sentenced to a heavy term in the event of a prosecution. Information reported by human rights organizations working on Algeria suggests that torture is commonplace there.
Victims
Cases documented by Algerian and international NGOs indicate that the phenomenon of torture mainly affects people suspected of terrorism. On 16 October 2010, Othmane Abdessamed Abdellahoum, 32, was abducted in front of his house in An El Hadjel by members of the military intelligence agency, the Department of Intelligence and Security (DRS). It was only after twenty-six days of enforced disappearance* that the members of his family were informed of his detention and authorized to visit him at the Bouira prison. Othmane Abdessamed Abdellahoum told them he had been held in secret detention* and tortured in the Antar Detention Centre in Algiers. According to his relatives, he showed signs of torture.3 Some Algerian nationals living abroad and suspected of terrorist activities, possibly already acquitted or convicted there, were forcibly returned to Algeria, despite the risk of being tortured. Such was the case, for example, of some prisoners detained at Guantanamo4 and Mustapha Labsi, illegally expelled from Slovakia on 19 April 2010 and sentenced in Algeria, in absentia, to life in prison for terrorism.5 Upon their arrival to Algeria, they were arrested and held incommunicado* in DRS sites, and then prosecuted or released. Although we have no specific information confirming that these men were systematically subjected to torture and ill-treatment while in detention, Amnesty International has received accounts from two Algerians expelled from the United Kingdom in 2007 confirming they were mistreated by DRS officers.6 According to the NGO Alkarama for Human Rights, some people accused of terrorism were probably taken in for questioning because of their contacts with foreign or Algerian human rights defenders. The United Nations Committee Against Torture* (CAT) has expressed concern over the rather vague definition of terrorism provided by the Article 87 bis of the Algerian Criminal Code, making it possible to obtain
BACKGROUND
The year 2011 began with a series of riots started by Algerian youth, already facing mass unemployment, against the price increase for basic staple foods announced by the government. Initially limited to Algiers, the capital, the protests spread to several other towns and cities throughout the country and led to a particularly violent repression by the security forces, causing five deaths and over 800 injured. In the wake of these demonstrations, intellectuals, opposition members, unionists and human rights defenders created the National Coordination for Change and Democracy (CNCD), which demands freedom of expression and the resignation of President of the Republic Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who has been in power since 1999. The protest marches organised by this opposition group in February, March, April and May 2011 again resulted in police abuse and several waves of arrests. Facing international criticism, the population's growing irritation and the threat posed by the Arab Spring to all leaders in the region, on 23 February 2011, the Head of State decided to lift the nineteen-year state of emergency decreed to fight against terrorism during the civil war1 and promised his 35 million fellow-citizens2 political reforms that would foster the country's democratization. At the time of writing, the results of this symbolic opening remain mixed: freedom of assembly is still stifled, and the state apparatus continues its crackdown.
162
163
convictions under this heading for acts that are not necessarily terrorism-related, and thus opening the door to such abuses.7 To a lesser extent, people suspected of common crimes are also exposed to torture, particularly alleged drug traffickers, due to the link the authorities usually draw between this crime and terrorism. On 13 August 2010, 8 plainclothes officers searching for narcotics carried out a warrantless search of the Djelaili family's home, in the town of El Bayadh, and arrested one of them, Belaid Ouadi Djelaili.8 They then took him to the police station, handcuffed him to a stair rail and beat him up, causing him severe injuries to the face.
on 2 June 2010 after an altercation with a motorist, died the same day while in police custody. According to his family, his body bore the marks of serious abuse.13 Finally, several accounts describe acts of torture and ill-treatment committed by prison staff, mainly in the El Harrach prison. In April 2010, four prisoners suspected of terrorism-related acts went on a hunger strike in this facility to complain about ill-treatment by the guards (beatings, humiliations and insults).14 Two years earlier, some 30 detainees had been tortured for having refused to return to their cell as a protest against the reassignment of their prayer room. Prison staff members had, among other things, undressed them, kicked them, hit them with fists and sticks, and threatened them with sexual assault.15

The main perpetrators of acts of torture and ill-treatment are members of the DRS, previously known as Military Security, and placed directly under the authority of the Head of State, who also acts as Minister of National Defence. The DRS was founded in 1990 and has become infamous for its mass abuses committed during the civil war. It currently represents the sole department authorised to prosecute cases of terrorism. Its members officially enjoy judicial police functions9, but operate without oversight by the Prosecutor of the Republic, who cannot inspect the unofficial detention centres used to carry out interrogations and commit violence.10 These torture sites, sometimes located in private villas, are most often located in military barracks, particularly in the six Territorial Research and Investigation Centres (CTRI), which correspond to the country's six military regions. These CTRI are administered by the DRS Counter-Espionage branch (DCE). Beyond these locations, torture is practiced in another secret place of detention run by the DCE11 and located in the outskirts of Algiers, the Main Operations Centre (CPO), better known as the Antar Centre. On 25 and 26 October 2009, the DRS arrested Larbi Ansal, a 31-year-old cobbler, and Noureddine Bouilouta, a 28-year-old shopkeeper, in the wilaya (province) of Jijel. Accused of supporting terrorist groups, they were detained in secret and tortured for five days in a villa close to a barrack in Jijel, then transferred to the Constantine CTRI. The two detainees were tortured once again and forced to sign confessions before being brought before the prosecutor on 9 November.12 Gendarmes and policemen of the General Directorate for National Security (DGSN) also sometimes resort to torture in their respective premises. Nordine Nadri, arrested

Most acts of torture committed by the DRS occur under police custody for questioning. This period is, in theory, limited to forty-eight hours under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but may be renewed once on authorisation of the Prosecutor of the Republic, and may even be extended to twelve days in terrorism-related cases. However, in practice, it may last even longer. Terrorism suspects, who are removed from the control of any judicial authority, are entirely left at their questioners mercy. These prolonged secret detentions, which amount to enforced disappearances*, are assimilated to psychological torture* and are imposed in addition to the physical torture. Torturers want to punish their victims but above all, extract information about any possible accomplice and obtain confessions, which will then be recorded in the minutes of the preliminary inquiry and used by judges. According to Alkarama for Human Rights, torture methods are roughly the same as those used in the 1990s, that is to say la technique du chiffon ("the rag technique"), in which the victim is immobilised and forced to swallow dirty water, urine or chemicals through a rag placed in his mouth; beatings; flogging (especially on the soles of the feet and on the genital organs); prolonged suspension by the arms from the ceiling; electric shocks; sleep and food deprivation; and sexual assault, including rape and threat of rape not only against the detainees but also against their female relatives.16 ACAT-France has documented the case of a young Algerian, M.S., suspected of having committed an ordinary crime and arrested by the police in 2008. He was locked up for several days in a dungeon, beaten, subjected to the rag technique, and sodomised with a bottle.
164
165
In May 2008, the CAT denounced another method of inhuman and degrading treatment legalised by the Algerian authorities by Decree No. 06-0117 implementing the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation adopted in 2005. This text requires the families of people who disappeared during the civil war to certify the death of their relative to receive compensation, and thus to renounce to claim the truth on the fate of their missing relatives. According to the UN Committee, this provision could constitute a form of inhuman and degrading treatment for such persons by laying them open to additional victimization.18
security forces for abuses committed during the civil war.20 On the other hand, exemption from prosecution is far more difficult to obtain for armed groups members. They must surrender to the authorities and, in practice, are forced to collaborate with them. Furthermore, they must have committed no massacre, bombing or rape. However, the perpetration of crimes such as torture and enforced disappearance does not hinder immunity from legal proceedings. For acts of torture engaged after the adoption of Decree No. 06-01, Articles 277 and 283 of the Criminal Code set out certain extenuating circumstances which may considerably reduce penalties for murders, injuries and beatings, and therefore implicitly for torture.21 Finally, no text expressly prohibits the use of confessions obtained under duress as evidence by judges.

Algeria has ratified regional and international treaties that forbid the use of torture: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. It has also ratified the Convention against Torture, and recognised the jurisdiction of the Committee against Torture to hear individual complaints, but has not yet signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention. Article 132 of the Constitution rules that these texts take precedence over national law. Domestically, the Algerian Criminal Code criminalises torture, defined as follows by article 263 bis: any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for any purpose whatsoever. Under article 263 ter, anyone who uses or incites or orders the use of torture on a person shall be liable to a penalty of between five and ten years imprisonment and to a fine of between 100,000 and 500,000 Algerian dinars (between about 1,300 dollars and 6,600 dollars). Article 263 quater calls for a prison sentence of between ten and twenty years and a fine of up to 800,000 dinars (10,600 dollars), regardless of the motive for the use of torture, if the perpetrator is a civil servant. Finally, any civil servant who acquiesces or condones an act of torture may receive a sentence of five to ten years imprisonment and a fine of between 100,000 to 500,000 dinars. However, Algerian legislation contain several provisions that are not consistent with the absolute prohibition of torture, especially the aforementioned Decree No. 06-01, which sets out the impunity of State agents and members of armed groups for acts of violence perpetrated during the Black Decade. Article 45 even provides for an unrestricted impunity for public officials.19 Moreover, Article 46, which has never been applied so far, could justify the prosecution of whosoever might try to sue the

On 18 July 2011, the investigating judge Sidi Bel Abbs ordered six policemen accused of wilful assault and battery following the death of Bachir Mohamed to be held on remand.22 On 3 July, the victim had participated in a police-suppressed demonstration to demand the assignment of social housing. Bachir Mohamed was beaten up by officers and taken to the police station. He complained of abdominal pains but had to wait several hours before being transferred to the hospital, where he died on 11 July. The surgeon who operated on him confirmed that his patient's spleen and appendix had been reduced to a pulp, and that his liver had been damaged by blows. Beyond this case, prosecutions against State agents responsible for acts of torture are rare, and never involve the DRS members. Impunity still largely prevails in Algeria, whether for recent crimes or for those committed during the 1990s. Thus Mohamed Mediene, the head of the DRS and as such head of the country's main torture agency, has occupied the same post since 1990.
166
167
This climate of impunity results from the aforementioned legal obstacles, from the victims fear when asked to give evidence, and finally from the iniquity of the judicial institutions, which knowingly turn a blind eye to crimes carried out by public officials. Even when traces of abuse are visible, investigating judges do not order an inquiry, while trial judges ignore allegations of torture and consider any confession, even extracted through torture. In those rare cases where the prisoner is granted a medical examination, the doctor generally refuses to record signs of torture.
[19] Republic of Algeria, Decree No. 06-01, Art. 45: No legal action may be initiated, whether individually or collectively, against the members of the Republic's defence and security forces, including all their component elements, for any action carried out in view of the protection of persons and goods, of the protection of the Nation, and of the preservation of the institutions of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria. [20] Ibid., Art. 46 1: Whosoever shall, through his declarations, writings, or any other act, use or exploit the wounds of the national tragedy to undermine the institutions of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria, weaken the State, damage the integrity of its agents who have served it with dignity, or tarnish the international image of Algeria, shall be punished by three to five years imprisonment and by a fine of between 250,000 and 500,000 dinars. [21] Criminal Code, Art. 277: Murder, injuries and beatings are excusable if they were prompted by beating or serious violence towards persons; Art. 283: When the exculpatory fact is proven, the penalty is reduced: to one to five years imprisonment, if it is a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment; to six months to two years imprisonment for any other crime []. [22] Algeria-Watch. "Mandat de dpt pour six policiers accuss de bavure policire Ain Temouchent" ["Detention order for six policemen accused of blunder in Ain Temouchent"], El-Watan, 20 July 2011, http://www.algeria-watch.org/fr/article/just/ mandat_depot_policiers.htm.
[1] U.S. Department of State, Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 2010 Human Rights Report: Algeria, 8 April 2011, 36 pages, p. 2, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160446.pdf. [2] World Bank, 2010, http://data.worldbank.org/country/algeria. [3] Alkarama for Human Rights, Algeria: Abdellahoum reappears after torture in secret detention, 15 November 2010, http://en.alkarama.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=625:-algeria-abdellahoum-reappears-after-torture-insecret-detention&catid=18:communiques&Itemid=78. [4] Amnesty International, Algeria/USA: Amnesty International opposes forcible return to Algeria of Algerian nationals detained by US authorities at Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, 18 September 2009, 6 pages, http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/asset/ MDE28/006/2009/en/3f90823e-d5bb-4d70-b66b-73ffa53e0049/mde280062009en.pdf. [5] Alkarama for Human Rights, Algeria: List of Issues, Committee against Torture, Alkarama's contribution to the list of issues prior to the submission of the fourth periodic report of Algeria, 13 August 2010, 19 pages, p. 12, http://en.alkarama.org/index. php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=259&Itemid=80. [6] Amnesty International, op. cit., p. 5. [7] United Nations, Committee Against Torture, 40th session, Concluding Observations of the Committee against Torture, Algeria, CAT/C/DZA/CO/3, 15 May 2008, 9 pages, p. 2, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/421/99/PDF/G0842199. pdf?OpenElement. [8] Algeria-Watch, Dpassements de la police El-Bayadh [Excesses of the El Bayadh police], 25 August 2010, http://www.algeriawatch.org/fr/mrv/mrvtort/tortures_el_bayadh.htm. [9] Article 15 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that officers and non-commissioned officers of the military counterintelligence services specially appointed by joint decree of the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Justice enjoy the status of judicial police officers. [10] Furthermore, these centres are never mentioned in the minutes of the inquiry. [11] Algeria-Watch and SIDHOUM, Salah-Eddine. Les centres de torture et dexcution [Torture and Execution Centres], Comit Justice pour lAlgrie [Justice Commission for Algeria], Dossier No. 6, October 2003, 26 pages, p. 14, http://www.algerie-tpp. org/tpp/pdf/dossier_6_centres.pdf. [12] Algeria-Watch, Jijel en 2009 : Le cauchemar de la disparition force resurgit [Jijel in 2009: The nightmare of enforced disappearance resurfaces], 20 December 2009, http://www.algeria-watch.org/fr/aw/cauchemar_disparition.htm. [13] Algeria-Watch. "Mort suspecte dun gard vue au commissariat de Sada : La victime aurait subi de graves svices" ["Suspicious death of detainee in Sada police station: Victim allegedly suffered severe abuses"], El-Watan, 10 June 2010, http://www.algeria-watch.org/fr/mrv/mrvtort/mort_suspecte.htm. [14] Amnesty International, Algeria: End impunity for abuse of detainees in El Harrach Prison, 17 May 2010, http://www.amnesty. org/en/library/asset/MDE28/003/2010/en/ad2d6c5d-d96c-4e6c-bc18-2e380e2bc856/mde280032010en.html. [15] Ibidem. [16] Alkarama for Human Rights, Algeria: Torture remains a common practice, Report presented to the Committee against Torture in the context of the review of the periodic report for Algeria, 4 April 2008, 32 pages, p. 7, http://algeria-watch.org/pdf/pdf_en/ ak_report_cat_2008.pdf. [17] Republic of Algeria, Decree No. 06-01 of 28 Moharram 1427, corresponding to 27 February 2006, concerning the implementation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. [18] United Nations, Committee Against Torture, op. cit., p. 6.
168
169
BAHRAIN
PRACTICE OF TORTURE
The resort to torture decreased following the coming to power of Hamad bin Isa alKhalifa in 1999, but it has grown again starting in December 2007,4 during clashes between the police and Shiite demonstrators, and it has markedly increased since the beginning of the uprising.
Victims
As repression has targeted the popular revolt since February, the profile of torture victims has widened considerably. People accused of ordinary crimes are still exposed to abuse,5 but people most likely to be arrested and subjected to ill-treatment or even torture are essentially those suspected of having participated in or supporting the demonstrations. Some individuals have been mistreated merely for having walked by a meeting and being suspected of having participated in it.6 While the great majority of victims are Shiite, Sunnis who express their disagreement with the government are not spared.7 Political opponents and human rights defenders are especially vulnerable to crackdown. On 22 June 2011, the National Safety Court sentenced 21 of them to prison terms ranging from two years to life imprisonment because of their involvement in the protests. Two months earlier, 14 of the accused had been arrested at night, without a warrant, then held incommunicado*, at least for the first ten days. Some suffered abuses during their questioning and detention, as for example Sheikh Mohammed Habib al-Miqdad, the head of the charitable organization al-Zahra. Arrested on 1 April 2011, he was taken to the headquarters of the National Security Agency (NSA) and was tortured for four days. His torturers beat him all over his body, repeatedly subjected him to the torment of the falaqa* and to electric shocks, and deprived him of sleep for several days, forcing him to remain standing and hitting him with a plastic hose every time he fell on the ground.8 Several relatives of arrested opponents and activists were also humiliated, threatened and beaten during police raids into their homes. The security agents who arrested Salah Al-Khawaja, the founder of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR), at his house on 21 March 2011, stormed the room where his wife was, dragged her across the rooms by the hair, then threw her to the floor and slapped and beat her with their fists and feet.9 Hundreds of others, simple demonstrators, unionists, teachers,10 students, writers, athletes or reporters, have been interrogated and mistreated, even tortured, on suspicion of having taken part in the uprisings or of having supported them. This
BACKGROUND
In the wake of the revolutionary wave that has swept the Arab world since January 2011, opponents to the leaders of the Bahraini monarchy have staged strikes and took to the streets of the capital, Manama, and of other cities in the country from February, to demand the respect of fundamental freedoms, the establishment of democracy and the end of the ruling Sunni minority's discrimination against the Shiite majority of the population. Demonstrators were immediately met with a very violent crackdown, causing the deaths of 32 persons and the arrests of hundreds more.1 Thousands of students, physicians, teachers and other workers have been suspended or dismissed, and have been offered reinstatement by the authorities on the express condition to sign an oath of allegiance to the sovereign, Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa.2 On 14 March, at his request, 1,000 soldiers from Saudi Arabia, supported by armoured vehicles, and 500 police officers from the United Arab Emirates, intervened in support of Bahraini army and security forces. The following day, the King declared a state of emergency, and thus authorised the armed forces chief to take all measures to re-establish order and preserve national security. The National Safety Court, a special mixed jurisdiction made up of one military and two civilian judges was created under this law,3 and thereafter sentenced score of civilians for offences related to the protests, such as illegal assembly, incitement of hatred, incitement to overthrow the regime or spreading false rumours. Despite the lifting of the state of emergency on 1 June, the proceedings before this Court have continued, and fueled the ongoing tension in the country.
170
171
includes many women and even young girls, arrested during raids into schools where anti-government slogans were allegedly uttered.11 On 18 April, police arrested some fifty pupils in an all-female school in the city of Hamad. These juveniles, aged 11 to 14, were brought to the police station, where they were interrogated regarding their involvement in demonstrations, beaten, forced to remain standing for hours, humiliated and threatened.12 State violence has also been used against the very law enforcement forces and has led to numerous layoffs and arrests within the police and the army.13 Several soldiers and policemen who had shown any sign of solidarity with demonstrators or had seemed reluctant to resort to force against them were tortured, some to death.14 Finally, the repression has spread even to hospitals and other medical facilities, where security forces committed abuses against staff members and wounded demonstrators.15 Scores of doctors and nurses were arrested because they had treated opponents, and tortured prior to being either released or sentenced to severe prison terms on the basis of confessions obtained under torture.16 For example, rheumatologist Fatima Hajji was arrested in her house, on 17 April 2011. Television channel al-Jazeera had just broadcast a video shot at the Salmaniya Medical Complex in Manama, the country's main medical centre, showing her hysterical at the sight of a man's body after he had been shot by the police in front of the establishment while helping injured people. She was accused, particularly, of having faked the scene, and interrogated and tortured directly by Noura al-Khalifa, a King's relative. Among other cruelties at her hands, she was subjected to insults, beatings and electric shocks. On 29 September 2011, Fatima Hajji was tried along with 19 other health professionals and sentenced to fifteen years in jail.17
Created in 2002, the NSA enjoys significant autonomy from the Ministry of the Interior, to which it is only partially connected. It manages the Special Security Force Command (SSFC), otherwise known as the riot police and tasked, in particular, with suppressing demonstrators (especially in Shiite zones), human rights defenders, and political opponents. According to the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, foreign-born Sunnis form the majority of the NSA workforce and constitute 90% of all Special Security Force Command members, whose status is similar to that of mercenaries.20 People arrested by the SSFC are usually mistreated or tortured during their interrogation, which mostly takes place in the CID buildings, or those of the Ministry of the Interior, known as al-Qalaa (The Castle).21 Bahraini and Saudi soldiers allegedly took part in the brutal crackdown on demonstrations and in the torture of the arrested individuals.22 Some abuses were also committed by armed men in civilian clothes23 and by uniformed policemen24 whose affiliation the regular police, the CID or the SSFC is unknown. Finally, some victims report that members of the royal family were personally involved in the use of torture, including two sons of Hamad bin Isa alKhalifa.25 Security forces and army have also committed acts of ill-treatment and torture in the streets, whether at the scene of the demonstrations or nearby, in their vehicle,26 in police stations (notably those of Nuaimi, Manama, and Isa Town),27 in the al-Gurain military prison,28 and in the Salmaniya hospital, turned into an interrogation and torture centre for some of the injured demonstrators.29

Generally, detainees are tortured while in police custody, which is usually limited to forty-eight hours but may, in practice, last several days, weeks or even months. The suspects are sometimes held incommunicado, without access to their family or a lawyer. During this time, they are frequently kept in handcuffs, blindfolded, and sometimes placed in solitary confinement*. The most frequent torture techniques include beatings with fists or feet; severe full-body beatings with a plastic or rubber hose or a stick; sleep deprivation (notably by forcing the detainee to remain standing under the threat of further beatings); electric shocks, particularly on the genitals; hanging by the wrists; the technique known as the roasted chicken*; falaqa; threats of rape and torture; and deprivation of hygiene. All victims report having been subjected to insults, often directed to their female relatives or in the case of Shiites their religion. Most of them have also been degraded in various ways: for

Most ill-treatment and acts of torture are perpetrated by officials of the Criminal Investigations Directorate (CID) and the National Security Agency.18 Since the start of the protests in February 2011, these agencies have intensified the recourse to torture against alleged anti-government citizens. The CID is a department of the Ministry of the Interior, headquartered in Adliya, in a suburb of the capital. People suspected of serious crimes and arrested by its agents are usually taken to these premises or in a temporary detention centre located on an island and nicknamed Dry Dock, where most of them are mistreated, even tortured.19
172
173
example, their torturers stripped them, spit on them or in their mouths, or forced them to kiss their shoes, clean the toilets in the detention area, sing the royal hymn and dance.30 As for people tortured in public, near meeting places or at the hospital since the February 2011 uprisings, they all underwent beatings, insults and humiliations.31 Torture serves to force detainees to sign confessions that they often are not allowed to read and will then be used in court, in some cases as video recordings,32 but also to punish alleged political opponents and dissuade them from continuing to express their hostility toward the regime. Some of those who were arrested have been forced to make a written promise not to demonstrate anymore.33
The definition of the crime of torture is narrower than the one given by the UN Convention. For example, the Criminal Code neither directly criminalizes consent to torture, nor punishes ill-treatment inflicted for any purpose other than that of forcing a victim to confess to a crime or to provide information concerning a crime. Another major flaw in the legislation is that acts of torture may be the subject of an amnesty. Thus, despite the recommendation made by the UN Committee Against Torture* (CAT) in 2005,34 the sovereign has not yet abrogated Decree No. 56 of July 2002, which grants amnesty to all officials who allegedly perpetrated crimes of torture or other crimes against political prisoners.35

The Kingdom of Bahrain is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and also ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture in 1988. Article 19d of the Constitution, entered in force in 2002, states that no person shall be subjected to physical or mental torture, or inducement, or undignified treatment, and specifies that any statement or confession proved to have been made under torture, inducement, or such treatment, or the threat thereof shall be null and void. Article 20d completes this condemnation by indicating that it is forbidden to physically or mentally harm a person accused of a crime. Article 208 of the 1976 Criminal Code penalizes a public official's resort to the threat or use of torture, whether directly or through a third party, against an accused, a witness or an expert, to force him to confess to a crime or to give statements or information to this effect. As this article does not provide for the corresponding sentence, it must be implemented concomitantly with Article 49 of the Criminal Code, which calls for serious crimes (including torture) to be punished by capital punishment or imprisonment for a term of between three and fifteen years, along with the loss of civil rights for the same period. The sentence becomes life imprisonment if torture leads to the death. Article 232 punishes, in exactly the same terms, the crime of torture committed by any person, that is to say a person who is not a public official. The minimum sentence is six months imprisonment if torture results in damaging the victim's physical integrity.

The Bahraini authorities almost systematically deny allegations of torture.36 Prosecutors tend to reject victims statements and to rely on confessions extracted by force, even occasionally compelling the accused to repeat these confessions by threatening to send them back to their torturers.37 In some cases, the victims do not dare to testify about what they have endured before the magistrate, because they are afraid of reprisals.38 It is not uncommon for judges to order a medical exam of alleged victims and for forensic doctors, answerable to the Ministry of Health, to determine that marks on bodies may be the result of abuse.39 However, such reports never seem to result in the prosecution of offenders, nor prevent judges from taking account of confessions obtained under duress. To date, several high-ranking officers of the security services, known for their involvement in cases of torture, have been retired or transferred to the private sector.40 In most cases, even when the government admits that acts of torture might have occurred and publicly pledges to unveil the truth about these allegations, no investigation is conducted and no prosecution is brought. For example, on 9 April 2011, the Ministry of the Interior announced the death while in custody of Ali Saqer. Suspected of the attempted murder of a policeman, this 31-year-old demonstrator had surrendered six days earlier to the police in Hamad, upon learning he was being sought. According to the authorities, the police had to resort to force to restrain Ali Saqer, who was causing trouble in the detention centre and died as a result of his injuries. According to the NGO Human Rights Watch, which viewed the body before the burial, there were marks of serious mistreatments.41 When questioned by the US news network CNN, the Minister of Social Affairs and Human Rights promised to investigate the case, while the Secretary of the Interior promised to have five prison guards involved brought before military justice.42 According to the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, as of 26 June, no officer had yet been convicted for Ali Saqer's death.43
174
175
On 2 June 2011, the sovereign adopted a decree creating a Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI), made up of five international human rights law experts and tasked with investigating and publishing a report on the events that occurred in Bahrain in February and March 2011 and on their consequences.44 Publication of this text, initially planned for the following 30 October, has been postponed to 23 November. Furthermore, the nature and legal scope of the recommendations the commission members are supposed to submit are not clearly defined.
[24] HRW, Bahrain: State of Fear Prevails With Arbitrary Detentions, Pre-Dawn Raids, 7 April 2011, http://www.hrw.org/en/ news/2011/04/07/bahrain-state-fear-prevails-arbitrary-detentions-pre-dawn-raids; BCHR, Students paid the price of belonging to the majority sect and were targeted along with their teachers in a vengeance campaign. [25] BCHR, Some members of the Bahraini royal family beating & torturing political prisoners. [26] HRW, Bahrain: Hold Perpetrators of Crackdown Accountable, 28 February 2011, http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/02/28/ bahrainhold-perpetrators-crackdown-accountable; BCHR, Some members of the Bahraini royal family beating & torturing political prisoners. [27] HRW, Bahrain: State of Fear Prevails With Arbitrary Detentions, Pre-Dawn Raids; BYSHR, Bahrain: Injured testimonies confirm that the hospital turned into prison, 16 August 2011, http://www.bahrainrights.org/en/node/4529. [28] BCHR, A special report on the torture and human rights violations against the detainees in the case of Alliance for the Republic. [29] HRW, Targets of Retribution, p. 37, 38 and 44. [30] BYSHR, Bahrain: Injured testimonies confirm that the hospital turned into prison, 16 August 2011, http://www.bahrainrights.org/ en/node/4529. [31] BCHR, op. cit.
[1] Human Rights Watch (HRW), Bahrain: Investigate Deaths Linked to Crackdown, 29 March 2011, http://www.hrw.org/en/ news/2011/03/29/bahrain-investigate-deaths-linked-crackdown. [2] HRW, Pledging Allegiance in Bahrain, 19 July 2011, http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/07/19/pledging-allegiance-bahrain. [3] Amnesty International, Date Set for Bahrain Execution Decision, 11 October 2011, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ MDE11/055/2011/en/cae90d22-3736-4103-a4a5-9b08a9e36813/mde110552011en.pdf. [4] HRW, Torture Redux: The Revival of Physical Coercion during Interrogations in Bahrain, February 2010, 89 pages, p. 13-14, http:// www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/bahrain0210webwcover_0.pdf. [5] Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights (BYSHR), A Video Showing the Effects of Torture on a Saudi Citizen by the Bahraini Security Authorities, 12 February 2010, http://byshr.org/?p=188. [6] Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR), Some members of the Bahraini royal family beating & torturing political prisoners, 16 August 2011, http://www.bahrainrights.org/en/node/4516. [7] Amnesty International, Bahrain: Further information: Bahraini officer released with conditions, 28 July 2011, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE11/041/2011/en/d1af3b5f-871c-4705-b24d-a49677db8c81/mde110412011en.pdf. [8] BCHR, A special report on the torture and human rights violations against the detainees in the case of Alliance for the Republic, 5 June 2011, http://www.bahrainrights.org/en/node/4386. [9] BCHR, Bahraini women are paying dearly for expressing their views, http://www.bahrainrights.org/en/node/4043. [10] BCHR, Teachers in Bahrain on World Teachers Day: Jailed, torture, prosecuted and dismissed from work for political reasons, 5 October 2011, http://www.bahrainrights.org/en/node/4720. [11] BCHR, Bahraini women are paying dearly for expressing their views. [12] BCHR, Bahrain: Violations of the Rights of the Child worse than ever: Deaths by excessive force, and military trials at age of 15, 29 May 2011, http://bahrainrights.hopto.org/en/node/4186; Students paid the price of belonging to the majority sect and were targeted along with their teachers in a vengeance campaign, 30 July 2011, http://www.bahrainrights.org/en/node/4466. [13] BCHR, Bahrain: Sectarian cleansing campaign to the security institutions, 31 July 2011, http://www.bahrainrights.org/en/ node/4541. [14] Idem. [15] Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), Do no Harm: A Call for Bahrain to End Systematic attacks on Doctors and Patients, April 2011, 37 pages, https://s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_Reports/bahrain-do-no-harm-2011.pdf. [16] HRW, Targets of Retribution: Attacks against Medics, Injured Protesters, and Health Facilities, July 2011, 54 pages, p. 41-46, http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/bahrain0711webwcover.pdf. [17] Bahraini doctors speak out against torture, al-Jazeera, 4 October 2011, http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/ features/2011/10/2011104816145658.html. [18] HAQ: Movement of Liberties and Democracy-Bahrain, To evade prosecution of involvement in crimes against humanity: Concealment and Rotation of Torturers in Security Establishments, 28 January 2010, http://www.bahrainrights.org/en/node/3040. [19] HRW, Torture Redux; Amnesty International, On trial for spreading false rumours, 22 September 2011, http://www.amnesty. org/en/library/asset/MDE11/050/2011/en/6c56abda-9c74-40c5-bd02-6dc515512d5e/mde110502011en.pdf. [20] BCHR, The King of Bahrain Grants the National Security Apparatus (NSA) Full Power, 23 August 2010, http://www. bahrainrights.org/en/node/3265. [21] BCHR, A special report on the torture and human rights violations against the detainees in the case of Alliance for the Republic; Amnesty International, Teachers to be tried by a military court. [22] BCHR, Some members of the Bahraini royal family beating & torturing political prisoners; HRW, Targets of Retribution, p. 39. [23] Ibid., p. 25-26.
[32] HRW, op. cit., p. 39-45. [33] BCHR, Teachers ordeal in Bahrain: Arrested, tortured, sacked, suspended and prosecuted, 11 July 2011, http://bahrainrights. hopto.org/en/node/4387. [34] United Nations, Committee Against Torture, 34th session, Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture: Bahrain, CAT/C/CR/34/BHR, 21 June 2005, 5 pages, p. 4, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/425/06/PDF/ G0542506.pdf?OpenElement. [35] Redress, Parliamentary Human Rights Group Seminar: Bahrain; failed political experiment, serious HR violations, 21 August 2008, 7 pages, p. 3, http://www.redress.org/downloads/country-reports/Bahrain_seminar_presentation_main.pdf. [36] HRW, Targets of Retribution, p. 59-60; Bahrain medics claim confession under torture, al-Jazeera, 12 May 2011, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/05/2011512111835943173.html. [37] BCHR, Torture in Bahraini prisons continues, with a number of children as its victims, 25 October 2010, http://bahrainrights. hopto.org/en/node/3543; HRW, Torture Redux, op. cit., p. 50. [38] BCHR, A special report on the torture and human rights violations against the detainees in the case of Alliance for the Republic. [39] HRW, Torture Redux, p. 65-67. [40] HAQ, op. cit. [41] HRW, Bahrain: Suspicious Deaths in Custody, 13 April 2011, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/04/13/bahrain-suspiciousdeathscustody. [42] Bahrain National Agency, Interior Ministry Arrests Five Prison Guards, 11 May 2011, http://www.bna.bh/portal/en/ news/456220. [43] BCHR, The systematic torture in Bahrain continues with full impunity on torturers, 26 June 2011, http://www.bahrainrights.org/ en/node/4320. [44] Kingdom of Bahrain, Royal Order No. 28 of 2011 Establishing an Independent Commission to Investigate and Report on the Events Which Occurred in Bahrain in February/March 2011, 29 June 2011, Art. 1, http://www.bici.org.bh/wp-content/ uploads/2011/08/RoyalOrder28of2011.pdf.
176
177
MOROCCO AND WESTERN SAHARA
PRACTICE OF TORTURE Victims

People arrested as part of the fight against terrorism which started after the Casablanca suicide bomb attacks of 16 May 2003 that left 45 dead are tortured almost systematically. Most often arrested without a warrant and kept in secret detention* longer than the twelve-days period of pre-trial detention provided for in the 2003 law on combating terrorism (Law No. 03-03),1 they reappear weeks or even months later, before the examining magistrate of the Rabat Appeal Court, the only tribunal tasked with hearing terrorism cases. While in police custody, detainees are subjected to ill-treatment by their interrogators until they sign confessions, which are then used by the judge. Such was the fate of Fouzia Azougagh, a 25-year-old student, who was arrested by plainclothes agents of the security forces in the city of Taza on 18 February 2010. Transferred to the secret detention centre of Temara,2 near Rabat, she was interrogated during fourteen days, handcuffed and blindfolded, insulted, beaten and sexually harassed. On 3 March 2010, the young woman was taken to the premises of the Casablanca brigade of the Judicial Police, where she was tortured once again and forced to sign a confession, before being brought before the examining magistrate. On 12 March 2010, despite her statements on the illegality of her detention, the extortion of her confession and the acts of violence that she had endured, Fouzia Azougah was sentenced by the Rabat criminal court to six years in jail, on the basis of the anti-terrorist law.3 Even when they are arrested for reasons other than the war on terrorism, Islamist militants are likely to be subjected to ill-treatment and torture. For example, seven persons affiliated with the Islamist group al-Adl wal Ihsane (Justice and Charity) were tortured during three days by Casablanca's Judicial Police agents, after being questioning in Fez on 28 June 2010. They were accused of belonging to an unauthorized group, kidnapping and torturing a former member, expelled on suspicion of working for intelligence services. They were forced to sign confessions that they were not allowed to read, then brought before the examining magistrate on 1 July 2010.4 Sahrawi human rights defenders or pro-Western Sahara independence activists are also victims of police abuse. These campaigners as well as simple demonstrators are regularly beaten by security forces members, sometimes with the complicity of Moroccans residing in Western Sahara, during peaceful gatherings deemed illegal.5 Some are arrested and mistreated, even tortured, then either released or placed
BACKGROUND
In the aftermath of the social movements the Arab Spring brought with it, Moroccan protestors from various ideological currents but sharing the same demands for greater democracy and end to corruption came together to form the 20 February Movement, and started holding a series of peaceful demonstrations in several cities in the country. In June 2011, in response to this revolt, King Mohammed VI proposed amendments to the Constitution which were approved by an overwhelming majority of the population on 1 July. The text now guarantees freedom of information, within certain limits, and theoretically grants the Prime Minister more power. However, it preserves most of the monarch's prerogatives, such as the power to dissolve Parliament, the chairmanship of the Judicial Council, and the appointment of judges. These changes were deemed very unsatisfactory by the protesters, who call for the establishment of a parliamentary monarchy and a true separation of powers. Moreover, the King's gesture of overture contrasted with the extreme police brutality unleashed against opponents in the field. The same paradox underlies the relationship between the monarchy and the Sahrawi minority located in the Western Sahara territory, controlled to 80% by Morocco since the withdrawal of the Spanish colonizer in 1975. The authorities have shown willingness to improve the living conditions of Sahrawis and to hold talks with the pro-Western Sahara independence political movement Polisario Front, but at the same time, they systematically resort to violence to crack down on demonstrations in the region.
178
179
in pre-trial detention before being prosecuted for conspiracy (Article 294 of the Criminal Code), violence against a law enforcement officer (Article 267), or arson of structures, whether inhabited or meant as dwelling, or of vehicles containing people (Article 580).6 Several Sahrawi militants are prosecuted in the military tribunal of Sal despite their civilian status7 for national-security related offences, whether domestic8 or external9. Among the hundreds of people arrested following the military and police operation launched on 8 November 2010 to dismantle the Gdeim Izik protest camp set up in the middle of the desert by Sahrawis10 near El Layoun, the territory's administrative centre, 22 Sahrawis were tried by military courts for these crimes. At least 13 of them were tortured in the El Layoun brigade of the Gendarmerie's headquarters prior to being transferred to Sal prison. In addition to insults and humiliations, most of them were kept in handcuffs for several days, blindfolded, and deprived of sleep and food. Some were also kept in the roasted chicken* position and others were burnt with cigarettes or given electric shocks. Six detainees were raped with a truncheon.11 Participants in the demonstrations which have swept the country since 20 February 2011 also run the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment and torture. The police crackdown has caused hundreds injured and at least one dead, as a result of the beatings inflicted by police officers during the protest march held in Casablanca on 29 May.12 The excessive use of force and abuse against demonstrators is not new. On 12 October 2010, Ilham Hasnouni, 21, a member of the National Union of Moroccan Students, was arrested because of his involvement, in May 2008, in the student demonstrations which had already resulted in questionings, cases of torture, and convictions.13 After being arrested without a warrant by plainclothes agents, she was interrogated and tortured during two days at the Jamaa el-Fna police station in Marrakech.14 Finally, although this is not a systematic practice, at least two people arrested for a common crime were tortured in 2010. The first is a 37-year-old man, Fodail Aberkane, arrested by the Sal police on 11 September 2010 for consuming cannabis, then released. Imprisoned again the following 15 September after an altercation with a policeman, he died two days later as a result of the beatings received in the police station.15 Boxing champion Zakaria Moumni is the second victim. Arrested on 27 September 2010 and tortured for three days in Temara, he was sentenced to three years in jail for fraud on the following 4 October, on the basis of a confession extorted under duress. In fact, Zakaria Moumni is alleged to be a political prisoner, arrested for having criticized the king.16

The main authors of torture committed under the pretext of the fight against terrorism are agents of the Directorate for the Surveillance of the Territory (DST), one of the Kingdom's intelligence services. Even though they are not granted the status of judicial police officers and therefore can neither arrest nor interrogate suspects,17 in practice, they are responsible for most of the arrests of individuals suspected of terrorist activities. They take them to the clandestine detention centre in Temara and interrogate them for several weeks running, nearly always resorting to torture.18 Once the interrogation is over, the detainees are transferred to the National Brigade of the Judicial Police (NBJP) in El Maarif, near Casablanca, which deals with politically sensitive issues. Here, they are sometimes tortured once again, before being forced to sign confessions. The date of arrest recorded in the report is that of the arrival at the Brigade, to cover up the period of the secret detention*.19 Some of those arrested as part of the war on terrorism are questioned by NBJP's agents and held directly in El Maarif, where they are most often tortured.20 Most of the torturers of Sahrawi people belong to the National Security Agency (NSA), deployed in the main cities of the Western Sahara under Moroccan administration: El Ayoun, Smara, Tan-Tan and Bojador.21 These officers inflict ill-treatment on militants, which can include torture (beatings, rapes, humiliations, etc.), in their vehicles, at the police station, or in some isolated places outside of the city. The soldiers, police officers and members of the auxiliary forces22 also participate in the ill-treatment and torture of the Sahrawis, generally as part of crackdowns against demonstrations. During the evacuation of the Gdeim Izik camp, gendarmes engaged in numerous abuses, at the premises, in the trucks where they held scores of arrested people, and at the gendarmerie station and in an orphanage used as a base by gendarmes and soldiers.23 In prison establishments, the Sahrawis24 and the people arrested in the context of the war on terrorism25 are particularly likely to be mistreated, even tortured, by the guards. In 2011, the army, auxiliary forces and police resorted to excessive violence to repress the demonstrations organized by the 20 February Movement. On several occasions, security forces agents used truncheons to disperse demonstrators and went after scores of them, whom they hit in the streets, in police trucks, or in isolated places.26
180
181

Most torture applied to alleged terrorists take place during the extended secret detention that follows the arrest,27 which constitutes a forced disappearance,28 and also amounts to psychological torture*. During their interrogation, detainees are most often kept handcuffed, blindfold, and sometimes stripped. Torture methods used to obtain information and confessions are beatings; sleep and food deprivation; the airplane technique, in which the victim is tied by their hands and legs to a metal stick and then hung upside down; falaka*; rape (particularly forced sodomy using a bottle, truncheon, pen or other object); the threat of rape or death; the application of electric shocks, mainly on the genitals, and cigarette or lighter burns. Many detainees also report having been forced to drink urine, while several others had also been drugged.29 The torture against the Sahrawi people is intended to humiliate them, to punish them for their alleged political stances, and to force them to sign confessions, should legal action against be initiated. Besides beatings, the roasted chicken* and sexual assault, people arrested during the dismantling of the Gdeim Izik camp have testified to having been forced to drink urine or to have had police agents urinate on them.30 The officers also forced some of the Sahrawis to sing the Moroccan national anthem or to shout Long live the King!, declarations of allegiance which have also been exacted from the 20 February Movement demonstrators.31
number of torturers; the quality, age or physical situation of the victim; and the consequences of the torture. However, the criminalization of torture is flawed. First of all, only civil servants may be prosecuted,34 and furthermore, they must have engaged in torture. Therefore, the law does not clearly establish whether the civil servant who incited to torture or consented to the act may be prosecuted. Finally, the Criminal Code does not provide for torture to be excluded from provisions covering amnesties, pardons, or statutes of limitation (Articles 49, 51, 53 and 54).35 According to Article 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, confessions obtained through violence or under duress are null and void. Concerning the obligation to inquire into cases of torture, Article 74 of the Code of Criminal Procedure demands that the prosecutor order a medical expertise as soon as he is asked to inquire into an act of violence or when any such act is brought to his attention. Article 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also requires examining magistrates to order an immediate medical examination for any person bearing traces of torture.

On 16 and 17 May 2011, nearly 200 people detained in the Sal prison for terrorism-related offences held a protest movement to demand the shutting down of the secret detention centre of Temara and to denounce the torture and unfair trials they were subjected to. This demonstration was a response to the Moroccan authorities persistent denial concerning allegations of torture.36 In most cases, judges and prosecutors refuse to record complaints for torture and order medical examinations,37 or they delay these to make the visible traces fade away,38 thus enabling them to close cases due to insufficient evidence.39 Those rare investigations that are launched never produce satisfactory results. For example, in the case of the young Kammal Ammari, beaten up by security forces during a demonstration held in Safi on 29 May 2011, who died in the hospital on 2 June, the medical examiner concluded that the victim had died of pneumopathy, which had aggravated the effects of a simple hit on the torso he had received during the protest.40 Impunity is also the norm for torture and ill-treatment inflicted on the Sahrawis. Following the police brutality at the time of the dismantling of the Gdeim Izik camp, the Parliament created a commission of inquiry. In its report, released in January 2011, it limited itself to noting certain abuses committed during the arrests.41 Besides its obvious bias, which did not contribute to determining the truth, the commission lacked the authority to provide any justice to the victims.

Morocco ratified the Convention against Torture in 1993 and recognized the competence of the UN Committee against Torture* (CAT) to investigate complaints submitted by individuals in 2006.32 On the other hand, the country has yet to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, or the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. The Kingdom's Constitution states, in Article 22: The practice of torture, under any shape and by any person, is a crime punished by law. Article 231-2 of the Criminal Code prescribes a jail term of between five and fifteen years and a fine of between 10,000 and 30,000 dirhams (1,200 and 3,600 dollars) for any civil servant guilty of torture.33 Paragraphs 3 to 6 of this article call for heavier sanctions in case of aggravating circumstances related to: premeditation; the
182
183
[1] This custody or pre-trial detention system already departs from the ordinary Moroccan law, which limits this period to forty-eight hours. Article 66 of the anti-terrorism law increases its duration to ninety-six hours, renewable twice with the authorization of the Public Prosecutor's Office. In such a case, the detainee may ask for the visit of a lawyer, which the Judicial Police may delay for forty-eight hours. A person arrested under Law No. 03-03 may therefore be forbidden any contact with the outside world for six days. In practice, these timeframes are seldom complied with. [2] United Nations, Committee against Torture, List of issues to be considered during the examination of the fourth periodic report of Morocco, CAT/C/MAR/Q/4, 20 June 2011, 12 pages, p. 8, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/436/99/PDF/ G1143699.pdf?OpenElement. [3] Alkarama, Maroc : Jeune tudiante torture dans les geles marocaines pour ses opinions politiques [Morocco: Young female student tortured in Moroccan jails for her political opinions], 6 April 2011, http://fr.alkarama.org/index.php?option=com_ content&view=article&id=920:-maroc-jeune-etudiante-torturee-dans-les-geolesmarocaines-pour-ses-opinions-politiques&catid =30:communiqu&Itemid=99. [4] Amnesty International, Morocco: Seven detainees allege torture in Morocco, 21 July 2010, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/ asset/MDE29/015/2010/en/ae25d9c3-ffa4-4c56-bd72-01c1e45aa6c2/mde290152010en.pdf. [5] ACAT-France, Rpression violente dune manifestation sahraouie, [Violent Repression of a Sahrawi Demonstration], Urgent Appeal, 22 March 2010, http://www.acatfrance.fr/ medias/appel_urgent/doc/AU_12_Togo_Maroc.pdf. [6] United Nations, Security Council, Report of the Secretary-General on the situation concerning Western Sahara, S/2011/249, 1 April 2011, 25 pages, p. 18, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/286/60/PDF/N1128660.pdf?OpenElement. [7] ACAT-France, Dtention de dfenseurs des droits de lhomme [Detention of human rights defenders], Urgent Appeal, 15 November 2010, http://www.acatfrance.fr/ medias/appel_urgent/doc/AU_46_Maroc_Mexique.pdf. [8] Kingdom of Morocco, Criminal Code, Art. 201-207. [9] Ibidem, Art. 181-200. [10] Fdration internationale des ligues des droits de lHomme (FIDH) [International Federation for Human Rights] and Organisation marocaine des droits humains (OMDH) [Moroccan Human Rights Organization], Sahara occidental Les affrontements du 8 novembre 2010 Layoune : escalade dans un conflit qui sternise [Western Sahara The confrontations of 8 November 2010 in El-Ayoun: Escalation in a conflict that drags on], March 2011, 28 pages, http://www.fidh.org/IMG//pdf/ MarocLaayoune557f.pdf. [11] ACAT-France, Torture et dtention de militants sahraouis [Torture and detention of Sahrawi militants], Urgent Appeal, 10 January 2011, http://www.acatfrance.fr/medias/ appel_urgent/doc/AU_2_Soudan-Maroc.pdf. [12] Amnesty International, Independent investigation urged after death of protester in Morocco, 3 June 2011, http://www.amnesty. org/en/news-and-updates/moroccan-protester-killed-clashes-security-forces-2011-06-03. [13] RAMONET, Igniacio. Poudrire marocaine [Moroccan powder-keg], Le Monde diplomatique, 9 September 2008, http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/ carnet/2008-09-09-Maroc. [14] EL RHAZAOUI, Zineb. On torture Marrakech [Theyre torturing in Marrakech], Diaspora Saharaui, 11 December 2010, http://diasporasaharaui.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-torture-bien-marrakech.html. [15] SAKHI, Montassir. La jeunesse Ittihadie organise, ce vendredi, un sit-in de protestation : Fodail Aberkane meurt sous la torture Sal [Ittihadi Youth organizes a protest sit-in this Friday: Fodail Aberkane dies under torture in Sal], Libration, 23 September 2010, http://www.libe.ma/La-jeunesse-Ittihadie-organise-ce-vendredi-un-sit-in-deprotestation-Fodail-Abrkanemeurt-sous-la-torture-a-Sale_a14090.html. [16] Human Rights Watch (HRW), Morocco: Free or Re-Try Champion Boxer, 25 April 2011, http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/04/25/ morocco-free-or-re-try-champion-boxer. [17] United Nations, Committee against Torture, op. cit., p. 31. [18] HRW, Stop Looking for Your Son: Illegal Detention under Counterterrorism Law, October 2010, 56 pages, p. 18-21, http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/morocco1010LR.pdf; Alkarama, When the domestic legal order is regularly sidelined, Submission to the list of issue in the context of the review of Morocco's 4th periodic review by the Committee against Torture, 11 March 2011, 12 pages, p. 6-7. [19] Amnesty International, Continuing abuses against individuals suspected of terrorism-related activities in Morocco, 16 June 2010, 5 pages, p. 2, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE29/013/2010/en/21eb0965-f0b4-442e-b9cf69ce9e65f393/ mde290132010en.pdf. [20] Amnesty International, Morocco: Investigate torture allegations, 17 June 2011, 3 pages, http://www.amnesty.org/ en/library/ asset/MDE29/008/2011/en/676aa5bf-3837-44f9-a43e-c976941a6226/mde290082011en.pdf; Alkarama, Morocco: Doha Aboutabit is forced to confess during 12 days of torture, 23 May 2011, http://en.alkarama.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id =508:morocco-doha-aboutabit-is-forced-to-confess-during-12-days-of-torture-&catid=29:communiqu&Itemid=150. [21] HRW, Human Rights in Western Sahara and in the Tindouf Refugee Camps, December 2008, 218 pages, p. 61-87, http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/wsahara1208webwcover.pdf; Association des familles des prisonniers et disparus sahraouis, or AFAPRADESA [Association of relatives of detained and disappeared Sahrawis], Rapport sur les graves violations des droits de lhomme perptres par les forces doccupation marocaines lencontre de la population civile sahraouie [Report on the serious human rights violations perpetrated by Moroccan occupation forces against the civilian Sahrawi population], 15-16-17-18 and 19 September 2009, 9 pages, p. 2-4, http://www.afaspa.com/IMG/pdf/Rapport_AFAPREDESA_sept09.pdf.
[22] Gendarms, who report to the Ministry of Defence, are in charge of law enforcement in rural areas and national roads, while NSA officers are responsible for law enforcement in urban areas. The auxiliary forces assist other branches of the security forces, such as the state police and NSA, and are not part of the Interior Ministry. The army is present on the borders of the Kingdom, and particularly along the 2,720-km sand wall erected in the southern part of the country by Moroccan authorities between 1980 and 1987 to repulse the armed forces of the Polisario Front and confirm their control over the largest part of the Western Sahara. [23] HRW, Western Sahara: Beatings, Abuse by Moroccan Security Forces, 26 November 2010, http://www.hrw.org/ news/2010/11/26/western-sahara-beatings-abuse-moroccan-security-forces; Amnesty International, Rights Trampled: Protests, Violence and Repression in Western Sahara, p. 11-14. [24] Robert Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, Western Sahara: Account of Human Rights Abuses Persist in Wake of November Unrest, November 2011, 19 pages, p. 7 and 11, http://rfkcenter.org/files/RFK_Center_Western_Sahara_Report_FINAL. pdf. [25] Alkarama, Morocco: Scores of detainees tortured in mass prison transfer, 27 November 2010, http://en.alkarama.org/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=619:-morocco-scores-of-detainees-tortured-in-massprison-transfer&catid=29:comm uniqu&Itemid=150. [26] HRW, Morocco: Police Violence a Test for Revised Constitution, 11 July 2011, http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/07/11/moroccopolice-violence-test-revised-constitution. [27] Alkarama, Morocco: Several detainees reappear following weeks incommunicado detention, 6 June 2010, http://en.alkarama.org/ index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=529:morocco-several-detainees-reappear-following-weeksincommunicado-det ention&catid=29:communiqu&Itemid=150. [28] United Nations, Human Rights Council, Rapport du Groupe de travail sur les disparitions forces ou involontaires, Additif : Mission au Maroc [Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Addendum: Mission to Morocco], 5 January 2010, 21 pages, p. 7, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC13-31-Add1_fr.pdf. [29] Alkarama, Morocco: Forced Confessions Threaten Heavy Sentences, 28 June 2010, http://en.alkarama.org/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=547:morocco-forced-confessions-threaten-heavy-sentences&catid=29:communiqu& Itemid=150. [30] Robert Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, op. cit., p. 7. [31] HRW, op. cit. [32] Following a referral by ACAT-France in the case of a dangerous extradition to Algeria of a French national held in Morocco, the CAT issued a preliminary ruling against Morocco on 27 May 2011: http://daccess-ods. un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=CAT/ C/46/D/419/2010&Lang=F. [33] The latter is defined as any act which causes acute physical or mental pain, committed intentionally by a civil servant or at his instigation or with his consent, whether explicit or tacit, inflicted upon a person with the objective of intimidating or pressuring said person or pressuring a third party, to obtain information or indications or confessions, to punish said person for an act said person or a third party committed or is suspected of having committees, or when said pain or suffering is inflicted for any other reason based on any form whatsoever of discrimination. (Art. 231-1). [34] Art. 224 of the Criminal Code provides a wide-ranging definition of civil servant, but it does not permit the prosecution for torture of private individuals involved in a crime which may be qualified as torture under Art. 232-1. [35] Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT), La criminalisation de la torture au Maroc : Commentaires et recommandations [The criminalisation of torture in Morocco: Comments and Observations], February 2008, 8 pages, p. 5-6, http://www.apt.ch/region/ mena/CriminalisationMaroc.pdf. [36] HRW, Stop Looking for Your Son: Illegal Detention under Counterterrorism Law. [37] Amnesty International, Rights Trampled, p. 15-16. [38] Alkarama, Morocco: When internal laws are regularly ignored, p. 11. [39] U.S. Department of State, Office of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 2010 Human Rights Report: Western Sahara, 8 April 2011, 14 pages, p. 5-7, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160080.pdf. [40] HRW, Morocco: Police Violence a Test for Revised Constitution. [41] United Nations, Security Council, op. cit., p. 15.
184
185
PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES
PRACTICE OF TORTURE
According to the number of complaints received by the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights (ICHR),1 the resort to torture and ill-treatment has considerably increased after the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip. The organization recorded 420 complaints concerning this type of abuse in 2007, against 126 the previous year, and 381 complaints in 2010.
Victims
The overwhelming majority of people subjected to ill-treatment and acts of torture were first arrested because of their alleged sympathy or political involvement for the opposite side.2 In the West Bank, these are people suspected of belonging to Hamas3 or the Palestinian Islamic Jihad4 or of supporting these groups. For example, in September 2010, over 150 Hamas militants and supporters were apprehended in the West Bank.5 This wave of arrests followed the attack carried out, on 31 August, by members of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas's armed branch, against the Israeli Kiryat Arba settlement in Hebron suburb, which resulted in the deaths of four people. Several of the individuals arrested suffered ill-treatment and torture. Such was the case of Salhab Ahmad, a 42-year-old mechanic, arrested by agents of the Palestinian Preventive Security Service on 19 September 2010 and tried before a military court because of his alleged ties to Hamas. Transferred on 30 September 2010 to the Preventive Security detention and interrogation centre, Ahmad Salhab was placed in solitary confinement* and deprived of shower and spare clothes for seventeen days. On the sixth day of his detention, his interrogators kept him tied to a chair for two hours, in a position made all the more painful by the fact that he had contracted a disk hernia as a result of torture inflicted during a previous arrestation by the Palestinian General Intelligence Service in October 2008.6 In the Gaza Strip, three categories of political opponents are particularly at risk of ill-treatment and torture at the hands of Hamas security forces, especially at the stage of interrogation: first, individuals suspected of belonging to Fatah;7 next, members of radical Islamist groups, such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad or the Jund Ansar Allah;8 and finally, people suspected of collaborating with Israel. Since capital punishment was reinstated in 2010 in Hamas-controlled territory, five years after the moratorium decreed by Mahmoud Abbas, three people, sentenced to
BACKGROUND
On 25 January 2006, Hamas won a majority of votes in the election for the Palestinian Legislative Council. Prevented from exercising its mandate by the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and his governing party, Fatah, by Israel, and by the international community, Hamas seized the Gaza Strip by force in June 2007, thus finalising the political and institutional division which was already well under way with the Fatah-run West Bank. From that date, each of the two enemy movements has engaged, on its territory, into a systematic tracking down of the other side's supporters, in the name of security. Attacks on human rights rocketed dramatically during and in the wake of the Israeli military operation Cast Lead, against the Gaza Strip between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, as a response to rocket and mortar fire from Hamas on cities and settlements located in southern Israel. Far from uniting Fatah and Hamas leaders, this offensive exacerbated differences between the two factions. Since this crisis, the deadlock in the peace process, due particularly to the irreconcilable Israeli and Palestinian positions on issues such as colonization, the return of refugees, and the definition of the borders of a future Palestinian State, have contributed to bring Fatah and Hamas closer. On 4 May 2011, they finally signed a reconciliation pact. Bolstered by this initiative and encouraged by the revolutionary wave of the Arab Spring, the President of the Palestinian Authority has launched a diplomatic campaign seeking to obtain the recognition of a Palestinian State by the international community.
186
187
death for collaboration with the Israeli enemy, were executed by firing squad on 15 April 2010 and 4 May 2011. At least one of them was allegedly tortured after his arrest.9 Those jailed in relation with the political context in the region and at risk of being mistreated and tortured also included the Franco-Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, secretly detained in the Gaza Strip from his capture in June 200610 by a commando of three Palestinian armed groups to his release on 18 October 2011. Throughout the Palestinian Territories, in violation of the laws on the deprivation of liberty,11 most presumed political opponents are arrested arbitrarily, without a warrant, held in custody beyond the twenty-four-hour period set out in the Palestinian Code of Criminal Procedure, and removed from the oversight of a prosecutor. These people are sometimes kept in detention despite release orders from courts, and are brought before military courts, despite their civilian status. For example, on 26 November 2010, six civilians imprisoned in the West Bank because of their alleged connexions with Hamas went on a hunger strike to protest against their continued detention, in breach of the notice of release issued by the High Court in early 2010, and their prosecution before a military court.12 In the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, journalists are also sometimes subjected to ill-treatment or torture, whether in the streets, near the events they are trying to cover, or in the detention centres to which they are taken after their questioning. In 2010, the Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA) counted ten physical assaults against reporters, i.e. four more than the previous year.13 The repression of media professionals is essentially related to the conflict between Fatah and Hamas. Finally, Palestinian and international human rights NGOs have reported several cases of torture in the Gaza Strip on people arrested for drug trafficking, theft, immoral conduct (homosexuality and sexual relations outside of marriage), or because of an altercation with a member of the security forces. For example, the judicial police questioned Ghassan Raji al-Abeed, a 28-year-old Palestinian residing in the Nuseirat refugee camp on 9 November 2010, two days after a dispute he had with his neighbour, an agent of the judicial police. Ghassan Raji al Abeed was taken to the Ansar detention centre and beaten by police officers for ten minutes, before being taken to a hospital.14

In the West Bank, ill-treatment and acts of torture are mainly attributable to the Preventive Security Service (PSS), General Intelligence Service (GIS) and Military Intelligence Service (MIS). The roughly 4,000 PSS agents, responsible for fighting terrorism within the territory and monitoring opposition movements, often resort to ill-treatment, which may escalate to torture, during the interrogations they conduct in their various premises and in the detention and investigation centres. The GIS, also comprised of 4,000 agents, is in charge of foreign intelligence and counter-espionage. Its members, like those of the PSF, have the status of judicial police officers and should therefore, theoretically, work under a prosecutor's supervision. In practice, however, they act in a completely autonomous fashion and commit the same abuses as their PSF colleagues against the individuals they interrogate in the GIS-managed detention and investigation centres.15 The 2,000 agents assigned to the MIS tackle threats to the Palestinian Authority emanating from the security services themselves. Contrary to what the law provides for, they arrest and detain civilians. Following the Operation Cast Lead, they arrested, interrogated, held and tortured many Palestinians in their premises, which are not recognized as detention centres by the Palestinian Code of Criminal Procedure.16 There are three other security agencies in the West Bank:17 i.e. the police, the Presidential Guard, and the National Security Forces (NSF). With its 7,000 agents, the NSF is the equivalent of the army and essentially intervenes to support the other forces, particularly during demonstrations. These three agencies also engage in torture, to a lesser degree. Under the Palestinian law in force in the West Bank, the police and PSS are placed under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior, the GIS under that of the President of the Palestinian Authority, and the NSF, supposed to control the MIS and the Presidential Guard, under that of the Ministry for National Security. Despite the efforts the authorities have made since 2007 to rationalize the functioning of these security services, in practice, each one continues to enjoy significant autonomy and tends to take action in the same areas as the others, without the least coordination. Therefore, a person may frequently be arrested and interrogated successively by two services. In the Gaza Strip, the main authors of torture and ill-treatment are police officers, particularly members of the morality police answerable to the Ministry of Religious Affairs and tasked, among other duties, with enforcing the promotion of virtue policy launched by Hamas in the summer 2009 and the antidrug police, and even more so the agents of the Internal Security Services (ISS), which report to the
188
189
Ministry of the Interior. The ISS were created in September 2007, after the break with Fatah, to prevent and investigate political crimes. Most of their members belong to the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades,18 which commit far fewer abuses since they were stripped of their police powers. During their interrogations, ISS agents are often hooded and show no warrant. Those arbitrarily arrested in this manner are beaten, even tortured, in the street, in police stations or in ISS-run detention centres. On 14 April 2011, ISS agents arrested Adel Rezeq, a 56-year-old Palestinian and former member of the National Security Forces of the Palestinian Authority. They took him to an unknown detention centre. Five days later, his family was informed that he had died while in custody, as a result of illness. According to his brother, who was able to view the body, it showed signs of bruises and apparent bone fractures, an observation which was partly confirmed by the autopsy report.19

Several provisions explicitly or indirectly condemning torture apply to both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. First of these is the 2003 Palestinian Basic Law, amended in 2005, which serves up as a Constitution and provides, in its Article 13, that No one shall be subjected to any duress or torture, and all defendants and other persons deprived of their liberty shall receive proper treatment, but also that all statements or confessions obtained through violation of the provisions contained in paragraph 1 of this article shall be considered null and void. Next is the 2005 Law on Service in the Security forces, which contains provisions that may be used to hold civil servants administratively accountable in cases of torture,22 and also the 2001 Criminal Procedural Law, which guarantees the rights of individuals deprived of their liberty. Its Article 29 specifically states that these must be treated in a manner that preserves [their] dignity and may not be injured, either physically or morally. The law also states that all confessions must be made voluntarily, without pressure, moral or physical coercion, promise or threat. Finally, Article 37 of the 1998 Law on Penitentiaries and Reform Centres Prisons, which administres detention centres, forbids torturing inmates, treating them with severity, and calling them obscene or degrading names. On the other hand, the penal codes are not the same in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip.23 The West Bank is governed by the Jordanian Penal Law No. 36 of 1960, in which Article 208 calls for the imprisonment, for a term of between three months and three years, of any person who inflicts upon another any kind of violence or ill-treatment not authorized by the law, in order to obtain a confession to a crime or information, and of between six months to three years in the case of any illness or injury provoked by these acts of violence, except where a more severe sentence is called for. Evaluated in light of the definition of torture provided by the Convention against Torture, Article 208 is insufficient.24 Firstly, it does not address the crime of torture per se. Moreover, considering the sanctions it imposes, it would seem to consider the use of violence as a misdemeanour rather than a crime. Finally, the article does not forbid the use of psychological torture, nor torture committed for any reason other than that of obtaining a confession or information. As for the Gaza Strip, it falls under the purview of Penal Law No. 74 of 1936, enacted under the British mandate era. This text calls for sanctions against public officials who resort to force or violence with the purpose of obtaining a confession or information
Methods and Objectives20

In the West Bank, most acts of torture and ill-treatment are inflicted during detention. Security forces regularly resort to the shabeh*, to slaps, punches, and kicks, or hittings with cables, garden hoses, truncheons and revolver handgrips. Several of them have reported being subjected to the falaka* and to cigarette burns. Detainees are insulted, humiliated, threatened, deprived of sleep, and locked in a tiny cell, often in solitary confinement, sometimes without any bed or blanket. During the first days of their detention, they are not granted access to a shower or to medical treatments and, as a result, many die in detention from the consequences of torture and/or the lack of care. Such was the case in 2009 of between 8 and 12 inmates, who died as a result of the abuse to which they were subjected in the West Bank and Gaza Strip jails.21 Both physical torture and psychological torture aim to obtain information and confessions, as well as to incite people to cease engaging in whatever activity they are being accused of. In the Gaza Strip, the methods and objectives of torturers are basically the same. In some cases, at the end of the session of abuse or torture, the victims are forced to sign a document in which they commit to comply with the law, abide by the moral code, and respond to police summons. In addition to the classic techniques, Gaza security agents apply another form of torture to political opponents, meant to punish and terrorize: hooded men arrest the individual, take him to some isolated place, and shoot him in the legs during a mock execution, before abandoning him there.
190
191
from the person being tortured or a member of his family. It also criminalizes acts through which public officials misuse their authority, exercise tyranny or infringe on individuals rights without necessarily seeking to obtain confessions. This law represses acts of violence more severely when they are committed by a public official. However, it also turns out to be incomplete, insofar as it fails to criminalize torture explicitly, does not punish its incitement, nor the express or tacit consent given by a State agent to this practice, and does not condemn the use of violence per se, if it is employed for some purpose other than the aforementioned one.
Both in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip, investigations into torture cases are rare and, when they do reach a conclusion, they result in lenient sentences compared to the seriousness of the crimes committed.
[1] Created in 1993 by Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, the ICHR ensures that the laws and institutions respect human rights. It hears individual complaints and mediates between the victims and the authorities. [2] Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), Inter-Palestinian Human Rights Violations in the Gaza Strip, 3 February 2009, http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2864:pchr-special-report-february-2009interpalestinian-human-rights-violations-in-the-gaza-strip-&catid=47:special-reports&Itemid=191. [3] Independent Palestinian Committee of Investigation into the Goldstone Report, Report of the Committee of Independent Experts, 12 July 2010, p. 50-71, http://www.picigr.ps/userfiles/file/un%20report.pdf; PCHR, Annual Report 2010, 9 May 2011, 265 pages, p. 79-87, http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/2011/Annual%202010%20E.pdf; ICHR, The Status of Human Rights in Palestine, The Sixteenth Annual Report: Executive summary, 2010, 55 pages, p. 27-28, http://www.ichr.ps/pdfs/exs2011.pdf. [4] Created in 1979 in Egypt, the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine (or Palestinian Islamic Jihad) defines itself as a nationalistic and Islamic liberation movement. Based in Damascus since 1989, it has carried out attacks against the Israeli occupants from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip through its armed branch, the al-Quds Brigades. [5] PCHR, Political Arrests Continue in the West Bank, 15 September 2010, http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6971:political-arrests-continue-in-the-west-bank&catid=36:pchrpressreleases&Item id=194. [6] Human Rights Watch, West Bank: Reports of Torture in Palestinian Detention, 20 October 2010, http://www.hrw.org/en/ news/2010/10/20/west-bank-reports-torture-palestinian-detention. [7] Independent Palestinian Committee of Investigation into the Goldstone Report, op. cit., p. 110-122; PCHR, Annual Report 2010, p. 24-25; ICHR, op. cit., p. 31-32. [8] An armed organization created in 2008 in the Gaza Strip, the Jund Ansar Allah deems Hamas too moderate in its implementation of Sharia law. On 8 June 2009, it attempted a suicide attack against Israeli soldiers. Five members of the movement were killed. [9] ACAT-France, Le Hamas renoue avec la peine capitale : dj 5 victimes [Hamas reinstates capital punishment: 5 victims already], 20 May 2010, http://www.acatfrance.fr/medias/communiques/doc/CP_ACAT_2010_-_20_mai_-_peine_de_mort_%C3%A0_ Gaza.pdf; PCHR, PCHR Condemns Implementation of Death Penalty against Palestinian in Gaza, 4 May 2011, http://www.pchrgaza. org/portal/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7424:pchr-condemns-implementation-of-death-penalty-againstpalestinian-in-gaza&catid=36:pchrpressreleases&Itemid=194. [10] ACAT-France, Territoires palestiniens/Dtenu au secret depuis cinq ans [Palestinian Territories/Detained held in secret for five years], Urgent Appeal, 27 June 2011, http://www.acatfrance.fr/medias/appel_urgent/doc/AU_26_Philippines-Palestine.pdf. [11] See, notably, the 2003 Basic Law of Palestine as well as the 2001 Code of Criminal Procedure. [12] PCHR, PCHR Calls for Release of Hunger Strikers and Woman detained by GIS, 5 January 2011, http://www.pchrgaza.org/ portal/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7219:pchr-calls-for-release-of-hunger-strikers-and-woman-detainedby-gis-&catid=36:pchrpressreleases&Itemid=194. [13] Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedom (MADA), 2010 Annual Report, 38 pages, p. 1, http://www.madacenter. org/madaeng/doc/annual2010.doc. [14] PCHR, Annual Report 2010, p. 85. [15] ICHR, The Palestinian General Intelligence Service, September 2010, 20 pages, p. 16-17, http://www.ichr.ps/pdfs/mmm1en.pdf. [16] The Palestinian Treatment and Rehabilitation Center for Victims of Torture conducted interviews with 50 Palestinians arrested and held following Operation "Cast Lead"; the interviews revealed that torture has been practiced systematically by the Military Intelligence Department. Independent Palestinian Committee of Investigation into the Goldstone Report, op. cit., p. 66-67. [17] The security forces in the West Bank are organized by Laws No. 8 of 2005 on service in the security forces and No. 17 of 2005 on general intelligence, as well as by Decree No. 11 of 2007 on preventive security. [18] HRW, No News is Good News, April 2011, p. 11, http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2011/04/06/no-news-good-news; Independent Palestinian Committee of Investigation into the Goldstone Report, op. cit., p. 111. [19] PCHR, PCHR Calls for an Investigation into the Death of a Detainee in a Detention Center in Gaza City, 20 April 2011, http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7400:pchr-calls-for-an-investigation-intothedeath-of-a-detainee-in-a-detention-center-in-gaza-city-&catid=36:pchrpressreleases&Itemid=194. [20] The torture methods presented here have been reported by, among others, Palestinian NGOs, including the PCHR, and by the ICHR (The Status of Human Rights in Palestine, the Sixteenth Annual Report: Executive summary, p. 32). See, particularly, Independent Palestinian Committee of Investigation into the Goldstone Report, op. cit., p. 63-69 and p. 117-121.

On 15 June 2009, male nurse Amer Haitham died as a result of the abuse he suffered in the GIS centre in Hebron, where he was questioned regarding his alleged links with Hamas. His death, which occurred after three other deaths under torture and numerous allegations of abuse committed by the West Bank security forces, led to a criminal investigation, the first of its kind. Five General Intelligence agents were brought up before a military court, without however having been arrested. In the end, they were acquitted on 20 July 2010, despite evidence and testimonies establishing the violence inflicted upon the victim. The court only sentenced the service to pay an indemnity to the family, under the pretext that its members had failed to take the precautions required to protect the prisoner.25 According to the official version, Amer Haitham jumped out of the top floor of the building in which he was being held. As a consequence of this case, the West Bank Ministry of the Interior issued Decision No. 149 on 20 August 2009, a reminder that no prisoner may be subjected to corporal punishment and that security forces agents are prohibited from taking part in any kind of torture. He also announced that 43 of these agents, including police officers, had been convicted of abuses, without providing any details on their identity or the sentences handed down.26 Even though NGOs noted a decrease in cases of abuse and ill-treatment in the following months, the number of complaints for torture filed with the ICHR in 2010 reveals that the positive effect of this order did not last long.27 Furthermore, the West Bank authorities have proven rather uncooperative, denying the allegations transmitted by this Commission on those rare occasions where they agree to respond to them.28 The same denials are put up by the Gaza Strip Minister of the Interior, who but seldom acknowledges any abuse attributed to his agents. However, sanctions are sometimes taken, as was the case after the death while in custody of Zaed Ayesh Jarad Mabrouk, on 16 March 2009, the day after his arrest. The police officers who detained him were dismissed and convicted by a military court.29
192
[21] PCHR, Annual Report 2009, 3 June 2010, 250 pages, p. 91-94, http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/Reports/English/pdf_annual/ PCHR%20Annual-Eng-09.pdf; ICHR, The Status of Human Rights in Palestine, The Fifteenth Annual Report, 2009, 268 pages, p. 7477, http://www.ichr.ps/pdfs/ICHR%20Report15%20-%20Final.pdf. [22] ICHR, A Legal Review of Provisions on Torture in the Palestinian Legal System, July 2009, 41 pages, p. 29-30, http://www.ichr. ps/pdfs/elegal69.pdf. [23] Ibidem, p. 26-29. [24] Ibid., p. 27-29; Independent Palestinian Committee of Investigation into the Goldstone Report, op. cit., p. 70-71. [25] HRW, Palestinian Authority: No Justice for Torture Death in Custody, 16 February 2011, http://www.hrw.org/en/ news/2011/02/16/palestinian-authority-no-justice-torture-death-custody. [26] HRW, West Bank: Reports of Torture in Palestinian Detention, 20 October 2010, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/10/20/ westbank-reports-torture-palestinian-detention. [27] In 2010, the ICHR received 161 complaints concerning torture or ill-treatment perpetrated in the West Bank, against 202 for the previous year. This considerable drop is probably due to the fact that in 2009, numerous arrests were made in connection with Operation "Cast Lead". [28] ICHR, The Status of Human Rights in Palestine, The Fifteenth Annual Report, p. 84. [29] Ibid; p. 77.
194
195
TURKEY
987 cases of abuse perpetrated outside of the official detention centres by the 45,000 or so village guards militiamen who are supposed to assist the army in its struggle against the PKK, and are renowned for committing abuses 3 and in prisons.4
Victims
The main victims of torture and ill-treatment are members of the Kurdish community. Some are militants or sympathisers of pro-Kurdish organizations suspected of links to the PKK by the government, particularly the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) and the Union of Communities in Kurdistan (KCK). Others are arrested during demonstrations held for the defence of their rights. In the overwhelming majority of cases, Kurds are prosecuted and convicted on the basis of the Anti-Terror Law, which provides for imprisonment of protesters for making propaganda for a terrorist organization; Articles 220 and 314 of the Turkish Penal Code concerning organized groups and armed organizations intending to commit crimes, particularly against State security or against the constitutional order and its functioning; and Law on Meetings and Demonstrations. Part of the Kurds arrested and then mistreated, even tortured, includes juveniles accused of having thrown stones at police officers or of having participated in a demonstration.5 On 22 July 2010, in response to pressure from civil society, the Parliament amended the Anti-Terror Law so that all children are tried as such and no longer as adults, as was previously the case for juveniles, aged 15 and over, who were charged with terrorism-related offences. Furthermore, they may no longer be prosecuted for crimes committed in the name of a terrorist organization if it is only a question of making propaganda or resisting police dispersal. However, this reform does not prevent authorities from continuing to question juveniles, to mistreat them, and to prosecute them for propaganda on behalf of a terrorist organization. Homosexuals and transgenders also endure widespread discrimination, and are sometimes exposed to police brutality. In 2010, among the 104 transgender women interviewed by the homosexual rights defence organization Lambdaistanbul, 77% said they had been subjected to sexual assaults by police officers.6 Theoretically exempted from conscription because of psychosexual disorder, homosexuals must prove their homosexuality by agreeing to cruel and degrading tests, such as an anal exam.7 Those who do serve in the military are frequently subjected to ill-treatment ranging from insults to beatings by other soldiers and their superiors.8 As the Turkish law does not recognise the right to conscientious objection, the conscripts who refuse to serve because of political, religious or other convictions, may be punished through a term of imprisonment in a military facility, where they are exposed to ill-treatment from other soldiers.9
BACKGROUND
A considerable portion of attacks on human rights committed by the Turkish authorities relates to the political conflict which has raged since the birth of the Republic between them and the Kurdish people, who account for some 23% of the population, reside mostly in the southern and south-eastern parts of the country, and are subjected to numerous forms of discrimination. In July 2009, under the pressure of the European Union, to which Turkey has been negotiating its accession since 2005, the government led by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) announced the adoption of a Kurdish opening policy. Therefore, while the State continues to refuse to grant Kurds the status of ethnic minority, it has agreed to certain reforms, such as authorising parties to campaign in languages other than Turkish. For its part, the armed political movement of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) decreed a unilateral ceasefire on 13 August 2010. However, the dissolution by the Constitutional Court of the Democratic Society Party, the main Kurdish political formation, in December 2009, because of its alleged links to the PKK, has braught renewed tension. The sporadic confrontations between the army and PKK militants caused 244 deaths in 2010,1 and pro-Kurdish demonstrations are still being violently repressed.
PRACTICE OF TORTURE
After decreasing between 2004 and 2007, the resort to torture and ill-treatment has grown considerably since 2008, according to annual statistics published by the human rights association Insan Haklari Dernegi (IHD).2 In 2010, it documented
196
197
Illegal migrants, including asylum seekers, constitute another category of marginalized population, particularly vulnerable to violence by the security forces, especially when entering and leaving the territory, but also in certain holding centres.10 Finally, Turkish and international human rights organizations continue to denounce the use of sometimes excessive force by police officers to repress students or workers demonstrations.11 They also note cases of ill-treatment, which may even escalate to torture, against people arrested for common crimes and against nonKurdish political opponents. For example, on 26 June 2011, the police arrested three young women and a man who had set up a stand in the centre of Sarigazi, near Istanbul, to commemorate the Sivas massacre a murderous fire which cost the life of 33 members of the Alevi community in July 1993. The police officers claimed the young man, Sami Tunca, was wanted by the authorities, which he denied, and then beat him and forced him into their car. They also took the women by pulling them by the hair. Two officers drove Sami Tunca to an isolated place, where they hit him, then to the Yenidogan police station, where they beat him again before transferring him to a hospital.12
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have gathered testimonies from many migrants who claim they were severely beaten by police officers, soldiers or gendarmes, close to the border and at police or gendarmerie stations, where they are often held before being taken back to the border or transferred to a centre.21 Gendarmes, responsible for the security around detention centres, frequently subject recently arrived prisoners, particularly political ones, to ill-treatment sometimes amounting to torture.22 Turkish and international NGOs have received multiple testimonies of inmates, both adults and children, who were mistreated or tortured by gendarmes and guards, civilians in charge of the security inside the establishments, in the Krkler and Ceyhan jails in Adana, and those of Diyarbakir, Erzurum and Konya.23 In 2010, the IHD documented 512 cases of torture and ill-treatment suffered by detainees, mostly political prisoners.24 To a lesser degree, certain abuses also take place in military jails.25 Finally, the IHD counted 57 cases of torture and ill-treatment committed by the village guards against civilians, mainly in predominantly Kurdish regions.26

The main authors of ill-treatment and torture are agents of the Turkish National Police (TNP), whose prerogatives were significantly increased by an amendment to the Law on Duties and Powers of the Police passed in June 2007. They may now carry out identity checks and resort to firearms under multiple circumstances, such as to capture a wanted suspect or to overcome resistance which cannot be met simply by using physical force, circumstances which are often interpreted extensively against the Kurds. For several years now, police officers have tended to engage in abuses in their vehicle or in the street, to avoid being caught by the surveillance cameras installed in official detention centres.13 Abuses are regularly committed by the rapid deployment force (evik Kuvvet)14 and regular police during demonstrations,15 especially proKurdish demonstrations, and during identity checks.16 Although less numerous than before, acts of torture and ill-treatment continue to occur in official police-managed detention centres: on the one hand, police stations, mainly the anti-terrorist units of the police stations located in the southern and south-eastern parts of Turkey (particularly those of Diyarbakir17 and Adana18) for Kurdish victims and those of Beyo lu gin Istanbul and Alsancak in Izmir for transgender victims;19 on the other hand, migrant holding centres, particularly those of A , Izmir and Kirklareli.20 r

The techniques used by the torturers have evolved over the last few years, with a drop in the resort of falaqa*, electric shocks, or Palestinian hanging*, and a rise in methods leaving fewer visible sequelae, such as repeated slaps, stripping, sleep and food deprivation, pouring cold water, rape threats, mock executions, solitary confinement*, exposure to cold, loud music or howlings.27 The same methods are used on children.28 The purpose varies depending on the profile of the victim. Torture applied to transgenders and homosexuals and to conscientious objectors specifically seeks to humiliate and punish individuals regarded as deviant. Torture used against migrants aims to force them to confess their nationality some of them claim to be Palestinians, to avoid expulsion or to force juveniles to claim they are major, so that they may be sent back to their country of origin.29 In other cases, mainly with regard to Kurds, the objective is to obtain confessions which will then be used in court.30 Finally, the resort to rapes, threats of rape, and sexual assaults against Kurdish women must be noted, because it undermine the whole Kurdish community, in which woman's chastity is highly valued. Most often, victims do not dare to reveal what they have been subjected to, fearing reprisals from their own relatives, who may consider that any attack on the chastity of one of its members dishonours the entire family.31
198
199

Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution gives international conventions force of law, particularly the Convention against Torture, ratified in 1988. Turkey has recognized the competence of the Committee against Torture* (CAT) to examine individual complaints. In 2005, it signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention, but has still not ratified it. As a member of the Council of Europe, Turkey is bound by the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It is therefore justiciable before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and, indeed, has already been condemned repeatedly on the basis of Article 3 of the Convention, which forbids torture. Turkey is also a party to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and has already received 22 visits from the Committee set up by this Convention. Article 17 of the Constitution condemns the resort to torture and ill-treatment. These practices are specifically criminalised by the Criminal Code, whose Article 94, headed Torture, stipulates: Any public officer who causes severe bodily or mental pain, or loss of conscious or ability to act, or dishonors a person, is sentenced to imprisonment from three years to twelve years. The sentence is from eight to fifteen years if the victim is a child, a pregnant woman or an attorney or another public officer by virtue of office. In case of sexual harassment, the minimum term of imprisonment is ten years. Penalties are the same for people who participate in the commission of the act, even if they are not public officials. Article 95 provides for aggravating circumstances that increase sentences, which may escalate to life imprisonment if the victim has died. The definition of torture in domestic law is wider than that contained in the Convention against Torture, because the Criminal Code does not take into account either the intensity of the suffering inflicted or the author's intent. Thus, Article 94 states that negligence does not entail a sentence reduction, whereas the author's intent is one of the components of the crime of torture as defined by the Convention against Torture.

On 1 June 2010, the courts issued a landmark decision, sentencing five guards and an administrator of the Metris jail, as well as three police officers and a physician, to prison sentences ranging from two and a half years to life imprisonment for acts of torture committed against three political opponents arrested in Istanbul in September 2008, including Engin eber, who died as a result of the abuse.32 This ruling, while exemplary, is no less exceptional. According to a report published by the Parliamentary Human Rights Investigative Commission, between 2003 and 2008, none of the 35 criminal proceedings for torture or ill-treatment initiated against 431 Istanbul police officers resulted in a conviction.33 When torturers are prosecuted, it is most often on the basis of Article 256 of the Criminal Code, which addresses the use of force exceeding the limits of authorization, or Article 86, on felonious injury, which call for sentences ranging from one and a half year to four years and half in jail for the convicted public official. The same agent, prosecuted on the basis of Article 94 concerning torture, is liable to a penalty of at least three years imprisonment. However, under Article 51 of the Criminal Code, any prison sentence of two years or less may be commuted to a suspended sentence.34 In most cases, prosecuted officials are cleared, often on the basis of medical reports prepared by the Forensic Medical Institute, which reports to the Ministry of Justice. Despite doubts concerning its impartiality, the courts and some prosecutors almost systematically refuse to examine the reports of independent medical experts.35 For example, in June 2010, the public prosecutor closed the investigation into the death of Resul Ilin, on the basis of the Forensic Medical Institute report which attributed the death to a heart attack.36 He ignored the autopsy report prepared by the Cizre hospital, which revealed injuries to the head and bruises on the body. Resul Ilin and his nephew, Mehmet Ilgin, were arrested on 21 October 2009 during a roadside check, then transferred to the district security headquarters. Resul Ilin was taken inside the building for questioning. Fifteen minutes later, the police officers told Mehmet Ilgin that his uncle had fallen and took him to the hospital, where he was declared dead. The first official version stated that his death was caused by a fall.37 Police officers usually attend the medical examination of detainees. The latter, who sometimes remain handcuffed and dressed, therefore do not dare report any ill-treatment or torture to the doctors, who in any case show little interest in performing in-depth examinations.38 Investigations into allegations of torture or illtreatment are generally entrusted to the police, not to the prosecutor, in breach of the Ministry of Justice Circular No. 8.39 Furthermore, even if the prosecutor himself is
200
201
not reluctant to investigate, he is hampered by the police officers40 who, for example, have no video recording of the station where the abuse is alleged to have occurred.41 In response to complaints, the police officers involved very often bring counteraccusations against their victims. Each year, thousands of people are thus prosecuted for resisting the security forces (Article 265 of the Criminal Code) or for defamation against a public officer (Article 125).42 Sometimes, victims lawyers are also targets of threats or judicial harassment.43
[20] CPT, op. cit., p. 27-29; HRW, Stuck in a revolving door, November 2008, 121 pages, p. 52-60, http://www.hrw.org/sites/ default/files/reports/greeceturkey1108web_0.pdf. [21] HRW, Stuck in a revolving door, p. 48-51; Amnesty International, Stranded, p. 26. [22] KHRP, Closed Ranks: Transparency and Accountability in Turkey's Prison System, April 2009, 92 pages, p. 41. [23] Amnesty International, Turkey: All children have rights, p. 21; HRW, Protesting as a Terrorist Offence, p. 66-68; U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, op. cit., p. 5. [24] CPT, op. cit., p. 37. [25] Ibid., p. 58. [26] IHD, 2010 Trkiyes Insan Haklari Ihlalleri Bilanosus, p. 3. [27] KHRP, Briefing to UNCAT for its consideration of Turkey, October 2010, 77 pages, p. 5-6, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/ bodies/cat/docs/ngos/KurdishHRProject_Turkey45.pdf. [28] IHD, Human Rights Violations in Adana in January, February and March 2009; HRW, Protesting as a Terrorist Offence, p. 67. [29] HRW, Stuck in a revolving door, p. 48-51. [30] CPT, op. cit., p. 15. [31] Roj Women Assembly, NGO Shadow Report for the Review of the Turkish Government under the UN International Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), October 2010, 13 pages, p. 4-5, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/ngos/RojWomen.pdf. [32] HRW, Turkey: Landmark Convictions in Torture Case, 3 June 2010, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/06/03/turkeylandmarkconvictions-torture-case. [33] European Commission, Turkey 2010 Progress Report, 9 November 2010, 103 pages, p. 18, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/ pdf/key_documents/2010/package/tr_rapport_2010_en.pdf. [34] United Nations, Committee against Torture, op. cit., p. 3. [35] KHRP, The Trial of Sebnem Korur Fincanc & Bars Yarkadas: Concealment of Torture & Ill Treatment in Turkey,, October 2010, 20 pages, p. 7-8, www.khrp.org/khrp-news/human-rights-documents/doc_download/269-trial-of-ebnem-korur-fincanc-abaryarkada-concealment-of-torture-a-ill-treatment-in-turkey.html. [36] Amnesty International, Turkey: Briefing to the Committee Against Torture, 18 October 2010, 15 pages, p. 7-8, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR44/023/2010/en/20f6df79-3fca-4eb5-8d16-341b5654411a/eur440232010en.pdf. [37] Bianet, Resul Ilin Dead after Falling down in Detention, 26 October 2009, http://bianet.org/english/humanrights/117850resul-ilcin-dead-after-falling-down-in-detention. [38] CPT, op. cit., p. 17-18. [39] United Nations, Committee against Torture, op. cit., p. 4. [40] HRW, Submission on Turkey to UN Committee against Torture, p. 3-4. [41] Amnesty International, op. cit., p. 5-6. [42] HRW, Closing Ranks Against Accountability, p. 69-74. [43] KHRP, Briefing to UNCAT for its consideration of Turkey, p. 8.
[1] Insan Haklar Derne i (IHD) [Human Rights Association], 2010 Trkiye Insan Haklari Ihlalleri Bilanosu, 4 pages, p. 1, http://www.IHD.org.tr/images/pdf/2010_yili_insan_haklari_ihlalleri_bilancosu.pdf. [2] IHD, 1999-2009 Comparative Summary Table, 3 pages, p. 1, http://www.IHD.org.tr/images/pdf/1999_2009_COMPARATIVE_ SUMMARY_TABLE.pdf. [3] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2010 Human Rights Report: Turkey, 8 April 2011, 46 pages, p. 8, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160479.pdf. [4] IHD, op. cit., p. 3. [5] Kurdish Human Rights Project (KHRP), The Situation of Kurdish Children in Turkey, January 2010, 159 pages, p. 137 ff, http://www.khrp.org/khrp-news/human-rights-documents/doc_download/249-the-situation-of-kurdish-children-in-turkeyfact-finding-missionreport.html; Amnesty International, Turkey: All children have rights: End unfair prosecutions of children under anti-terrorism legislation in Turkey, 17 June 2010, 31 pages, p. 4, http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/asset/EUR44/011/2010/ fr/5eba9b57-cf8c-4567-8bd5-1b709fc3a572/eur440112010fra.pdf. [6] Amnesty International, Not an Illness nor a Crime Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People in Turkey Demand Equality, June 2011, 48 pages, p. 12. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR44/001/2011/en/aff47406-89e4-43b493edebb6fa107637/eur440012011en.pdf. [7] Ibidem, p. 17. [8] Ibid., p. 17-18. [9] Amnesty International, Soldiers convicted for ill-treatment of conscientious objector in Turkey, 19 November 2010, http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/soldiers-convicted-ill-treatment-conscientious-objector-turkey-20091119. [10] Amnesty International, Stranded: Refugees in Turkey Denied Protection, April 2009, 49 pages, http://www.amnesty.org/en/ library/asset/EUR44/001/2009/en/0f217291-cae8-4093-bda9-485588e245d8/eur440012009en.pdf. [11] Human Rights Watch (HRW), Submission on Turkey to UN Committee against Torture, October 2010, 9 pages, p. 2, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/ngos/HRW_Turkey45.pdf. [12] Bianet, Torture in Police Custody-Lawyer Threatened, 29 June 2011, http://bianet.org/english/freedom-ofexpression/131111torture-in-police-custody---lawyer-threatened. [13] United Nations, Committee against Torture, 45th session, Concluding Observations of the Committee against Torture: Turkey, 20 January 2011, 12 pages, p. 3, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/404/04/PDF/G1140404.pdf?OpenElement. [14] HRW, Turkey: Protesting as a Terrorist Offence, November 2010, 74 pages, p. 67, http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/ reports/turkey1110webwcover.pdf. [15] HRW, Submission on Turkey to UN Committee against Torture, p. 2; United Nations, Committee Against Torture, op. cit., p. 6. [16] HRW, Turkey: Closing Ranks Against Accountability, December 2008, 80 pages, p. 57, http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/ reports/turkey1208webwcover.pdf. [17] European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), Report to the Turkish Government on the visit to Turkey carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment from 4 to 17 June 2009, 31 March 2011, p. 14-15, http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/tur/201113-inf-eng.pdf. [18] IHD, Human Rights Violations in Adana in January, February and March 2009: Monitoring Report by the Adana branch of the Human Rights Association, 8 April 2009, http://www.IHD.org.tr/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid= 17:special-reports&id=495:human-rights-violations-in-adana-in-january-february-and-march-2009-monitoring-report-bythe-adanabranch-of-the-human-rights-association; HRW, Protesting as a Terrorist Offence, p. 66-68. [19] Amnesty International, Not an Illness nor a Crime, p. 12-13.
203
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
Burundi . Ethiopia . Gambia . Mauritania . Nigeria .
204
205
MAURITANIA
nouakchott * 3.4 m
INTRODUCTION
Although absolutely prohibited by international law, torture is still used in many African States, including those that have ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture, not only to obtain forced confessions or information, but also to stifle, punish and terrorize. Dictatorships and regimes with dictatorial tendencies, such as Mauritania, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Equatorial Guinea and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), have turned torture into a genuine system of investigation and repression for the security apparatus. In periods of conflict, as was actually the case between 2010 and 2011 in Cte dIvoire, DRC, Sudan and Somalia, citizens fundamental rights were, once again, put on hold and the atrocities perpetrated by warring parties and armed individuals were common occurrences. In such situations, arbitrary arrests and detentions, summary executions, rape and sexual assaults, and acts of torture become a cruel and daily commonplace practice. Throughout the post-election crisis that followed the presidential election of 28 November 2010 in Cte dIvoire, an undetermined number of people, likely in the hundreds, suffered abuse while in the custody of the security forces and militias loyal to the former Head of State, Laurent Gbagbo, and of those of his successor, Alassane Ouattara. On 23 June 2011, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court* (ICC), called for an investigation to be launched into war crimes and crimes against humanity committed after this election. In most African countries, extracting confessions is generally the only method used to establish a suspect's guilt, due to a lack of effective means of investigation and insufficient logistical or financial resources. In this regard, the case of Sudan, whose laws do not prohibit the admissibility of evidence obtained under torture, is particularly striking. Far too often, torture is deeply rooted in the culture of security forces, who act with total impunity, particularly when repressing demonstrations, popular protests, or attempted or allegedly attempted coups dtat. During the night of 18-19 July 2011, the Guinean president, Alpha Cond, was the target of an attempted assassination at the hands of the military while in his private residence. Over 80 civilians and members of the army were subsequently placed under arrest in a manner which, in most cases, did not comply with the applicable legal procedures in place. Many of them
GAMBIA
banjul * 1.7 m
NIGERIA
abuja * 158.4 m
ETHIOPIA
addis ababa * 82.9 m
BURUNDI
bujumbura * 8.3 m
206
207
were subjected to torture when detained in the military camps of Samory-Toure and PM3 (Poste militaire No. 3, or Military Post No. 3, an extrajudicial detention centre located in police barracks in the capital, Conakry). Human rights defenders are particularly likely to be victims of repression. In certain countries, including Angola, Somalia, DRC, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Eritrea, Gambia, and Rwanda, these activists are regularly subjected to intimidation and harassment, typically characterized by being placed under surveillance or under arbitrary arrest. In recent years, many of them have been attacked by police officers while being arrested or tortured by intelligence agents during their detention. Under the guise of fighting terrorism, several States plagued by internal political violence, such as Nigeria, Uganda, Mauritania, Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia, openly ignore international standards on the protection of human rights. Law enforcement officers practice torture on persons suspected of having ties with Islamic movements accused of terrorism, but also against political activists seeking greater independence for certain ethnic or religious groups. In the Horn of Africa, people are frequently arrested as part of the struggle against al-Qaeda and against Somali Islamists led by the United States and their Ethiopian and Kenyan allies. Most of them are held in secret detention*. In Africa, police members and other persons responsible for enforcing the law are rarely held accountable in court for the mistreatment or abuse they initiate or perpetrate. Often, the ambiguity of the legislation's text, coupled with the lack of criminalization of torture under domestic laws, allows law enforcement agents to use torture regularly without fear of the slightest punishment. For example, Guinean law does not contain a single explicit definition of the offence of torture. This chronic impunity is also the result of a lack of any real political will to investigate allegations of torture and arraign the suspected perpetrators before criminal courts. Torturers, therefore, believe themselves to be above the law. The lack of investigations and convictions deprives the victims and their families of their rights to know the truth, to seek justice and to receive compensation. In many African States, like Nigeria, officers whose participation in torture has been proven pursue their career unhindered, even getting promoted to positions of responsibility. Despite the significant development of regional institutions for the defence of human rights over the last twenty years, particularly the creation of the African Court on Human and People's Rights (ACHPR) in 2004, many countries are reluctant to engage in a constructive dialogue with international organizations and international experts, especially with the Human Rights Council established in 2006 by the United Nations and the UN Special Rapporteur* on Torture. Their recommendations are rarely implemented.
For several years now, a number of African Heads of State have challenged the ICC, considered to be an instrument of postcolonial domination. It is true that, with this institution, they can now be subject to prosecution, an unthinkable development prior to this. The Sudanese president is a current target, albeit the African Union (AU) refuses to execute the international arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court against Omar al-Bashir. At the conclusion of the African Union summit held from 30 June to 1 July 2011 in Equatorial Guinea, the President of the AU Commission, Jean Ping, proposed the creation of a Criminal Court in Africa, to counter the ICC, which he publicly criticized as looking only interested in trying the Africans.
In the five countries for which we have produced fact sheets in 2010, to wit, Eritrea, Guinea, Equatorial Guinea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Zimbabwe, the practice of torture unfortunately persists. However, the president of DRC, Joseph Kabila, did enact a law on 20 July 2011 condemning and/or criminalizing torture, which was already theoretically prohibited under the 2005 Constitution.
208
209
BURUNDI
between 1 June and 8 July 2010, resulting in the deaths of 11 persons and injuries to 63.1 Pierre Nkurunziza, the only registered candidate, was re-elected with 91% of votes. Instead of strengthening democracy, the 2010 electoral cycle (communal elections on 24 May, presidential election on 28 June, legislative elections on 23 and 28 July, and lections collinaires of 7 September) revived the divisions between political actors and reinforced the CNDD-FDD's control over Burundi.

From 1993 to 2009, the Republic of Burundi was engaged in a civil war that caused 300,000 deaths and the exile of several million people to neighbouring countries. The coup dtat and the murder of the first President of the Republic belonging to the Hutu majority, Melchior Ndadaye, by Tutsi soldiers in October 1993 mark the beginning of the hostilities between the army and various essentially Hutu rebel movements hostile to the quasi-monopoly held till then by Tutsis over political power and armed forces. Launched in Tanzania in June 1998, the inter-Burundian peace process scored several gains: implementation of transitional institutions in 2000; signature in 2003 of a Protocol on Political, Defence and Security Power Sharing between the transitional government, headed by a Hutu, and the main Hutu rebellion, the National Council for the Defence of Democracy Forces for the Defense of Democracy (CNDD-FDD); and agreement, in October, to a ceasefire between the two parties. This agreement brought back peace in a large portion of the territory, except the areas of operation of the last Hutu rebel group, the Party for the Liberation of the Hutu People National Forces of Liberation (Palipethu-FNL). The communal, legislative and senatorial elections held between June and July 2005 yielded a significant victory to the CNDD-FDD and bore a member of the party, Pierre Nkurunziza, to the position of Head of State. The Palipethu-FNL joined the peace process three years later. After the victory of the CNDD-FDD in the communal elections of May 2010, the opposition accused the government of electoral fraud and decided to boycott the presidential election of 28 June 2010. In response, the authorities forbade the opposition from engaging in any political activity, which resulted in numerous arrests and acts of violence. According to the UN, there were 106 [grenade] attacks committed While it had decreased for several years, torture and ill-treatment inflicted to detainees are now on the increase with the breakdown of the political and security situation which occurred after the elections. In 2008, the Independent Expert of the United Nations on Burundi listed over 4,000 cases of attacks against human rights involving law enforcement agents or provincial civil servants: Most violations registered related to cases of ill-treatment, rape, torture of suspects by police officials and violations of due process by police and judicial officials.2 The United Nations Integrated Office in Burundi (BINUB) indicated no case in 2009, but confirmed 18 cases of torture perpetrated by the security services in 2010.3 Just for the period of May to July 2010, a local human rights organization counted 4 cases of torture and 26 cases of ill-treatment imputed to the Burundian National Police (PNB). As for ACAT-Burundi, it has gathered evidence of 35 cases of torture in the detention centres it was able to visit during the second quarter of 2011.
Victims
In general, people arrested for ordinary offences are the main targets of torture and ill-treatment. However, during the 2010 electoral cycle, the victims were more often soldiers, opponents and civil servants who criticised the authorities. On 29 January 2010, in the capital, Bujumbura, army leaders and police officers arrested soldiers suspected of fomenting a coup. According to the military prosecutor who interrogated the highest-ranking officers, they intended to carry out a coup to force the President to accelerate the reform of the status of soldiers and to grant them housing allowances. After his departure, two of the detainees were left at the hands of the Deputy Director General of Police, Gervais Ndirakobuca, whom Burundians
210
211
nickname Ndakugarika (the killer). The next day, they described the acts of torture to which they were subjected in order to confess their alleged connivance with opposition leaders. Forced to sign a statement, they were charged with incitement to and involvement in a mutiny.4 Following the acquittal of Sinduhije Alexis, leader of the opposition party Movement for Solidarity and Democracy (MSD), who had been charged with contempt for the Head of State,5 a man in a police uniform pulled a weapon on one of the judges of High Court of Bujumbura in charge of this dossier, Dsir Nizigiyimana, on 6 May 2010, then forced him into a car where other people were waiting. He was driven to the countryside, questioned and tortured regarding his alleged role in the opposition leader's release. His aggressors wanted to know how much money the magistrates had received to acquit Alexis Sinduhije, then released him that evening, giving him three days to present a written confession.6 Between late June and early July 2010, members of the National Intelligence Service (SNR) and PNB arrested 12 members of opposition parties7 suspected of having endangered the safety of the State during a series of grenade attacks. They held them for several days at the SNR headquarters and used physical and psychological torture* to obtain information and confessions from them.8 During this period, human rights defenders who had warned of the return of torture were the subject of intimidation, harassment and harm to their physical integrity. The authorities expelled a Human Rights Watch (HRW) researcher following the May 2010 publication of a report on political violence in the country.9 After the elections, the imprisonments of opponents continued and the repressive measures against reporters intensified.
Created in March 2006, the SNR15 also known as the National Documentation, following the name of its predecessor or as Presidential Police, because of the direct authority the Head of State exercises over its General Administrator16 has a wide-ranging mandate and often operates without regard for the law and human rights. In charge of State security, the SNR also plays the role of judicial police, which carries the risk that the service might be used as a means of political repression according to a report issued by the United Nations Committee Against Torture* (CAT) in 2007.17 The CAT also expressed its concern over the high number of forced disappearances, arbitrary arrests and incommunicado* detentions, the main perpetrators of which are allegedly officials of the National Intelligence Service. The National Defence Forces (FDN) and the members of the ruling party's youth league, the Imbonerakure,18 also engage in acts of violence and cruelty. Allegedly, PNB holding cells are the main places of torture and ill-treatment.19 SNR establishments,20 particularly the one in Bujumbura, the country's 11 jails and 400 local communal prisons are also involved.

Beatings, slaps, humiliations These abuses occur both during arrests and during custody, particularly while interrogating detainees. For example, the 12 opponents arrested in June and July 2010 were hit repeatedly by SNR agents during their interrogations, which took place in the SNR detention centre in Bujumbura. They were slapped, kicked, hit with truncheons over their entire bodies, including the face, feet and genitals, while questions were being asked. [] A small part of a detainee's ear was cut off, and he was allegedly been forced to eat it.21 Threatened with death, they were also refused any access to a lawyer and to medical care for about one week. The objective of torturers is to obtain confessions from the alleged criminals and, since the 2010 electoral crisis, to force detainees to reject their political beliefs and confess their involvement in activities meant to destabilise the country.

Defence and security forces, jointly numbering some 40,000,10 continue to resort to torture against civilians and detainees.11 The main agencies involved are the PNB and SNR, consisting mostly of former members of the rebellions who signed peace agreements, often lacking both training and experience. National Police agents allegedly still find it difficult to accept their role, which is now civilian rather than military.12 The PNB, created in December 2004 as part of a peace agreement, is a civilian force which reports to the Minister for Public Security.13 It has 18,000 officers, sergeants and agents, half of which are former rebels with almost no professional training,14 while the other half consists of former gendarmes and police officers.
212
213

Signatory to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibit torture, Burundi also adhered to the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 1993. The domestic Constitution and legislation also forbid torture. The new Criminal Code, adopted in 2009, defines it as an offence. As other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatments, it may be sanctioned by imprisonment for ten to fifteen years, and up to twenty years in cases that involve the use or the threat to use a weapon, and by a fine ranging from 100,000 to 1 million Burundian francs (between 75 and 750 dollars).22 But most of these provisions are hard to apply, due to the failure to adopt a new Code of Criminal Procedure (the government is considering a project for its revision). According to the text in place, which dates from 1999, the judicial police must nevertheless launch investigations into offences, whether or not a complaint has been filed.23 The bodies in charge of security (the PNB, SNR and FDN) also have internal procedures to investigate their members suspected of torture and to prosecute them. Furthermore, they are placed under the supervision of the Parliamentary Commission on Security and Defence, whose members are elected civil servants.24 Since the establishment of his office in November 2010,25 the country's first Ombudsman may examine complaints, inquire into attacks on human rights committed by public officials, and put forward recommendations to the authorities.26 A department was also created within the Ministry of National Solidarity, Human Rights and Gender to provide assistance to torture victims. With the support of the international community, a compensation fund is currently under creation. The National Independent Human Rights Commission in Burundi (CNIDH), set up in June 2011,27 has broad responsibilities, as it must hear complaints and inquire into human rights violations, improve the treatment of people deprived of their liberty, and prevent acts of torture and other ill-treatment.

Despite all these provisions, impunity remains unchallenged in Burundi. The government set up a commission of inquiry into crimes committed during the 2010 elections, but it has not yet kept its promise to Amnesty International to investigate allegations of torture committed by the SNR during the summer of that year and to punish those presumed responsible. Suspected agents are still in office. On 7 June 2010, the District Court for Muramvya, a province located in the centre of Burundi, convicted three police officers for torture against alleged FNL members and other detainees in 2007. Apparently, the guilty parties have not yet been informed of the judgment, and two of them continue to exercise their function and are still in contact with civilians.28 The impunity enjoyed by defence and security forces is largely related to the lack of political will to put an end to it. The authorities rarely admit the existence of torture. On 22 July 2010, the SNR's legal counsel, Jrme Kantanta, refuted accusations of torture made against agents of his service and declared that the detainees might have been injured while attempting to resist arrest during the summer of 2010.29 Another SNR executive spoke of self-defence and stated that no disciplinary or legal measure would be taken. The practice is sometimes acknowledged, although not in so many words: for example, the Minister of the Interior, Edouard Nduwimana, agreed that cases might occur occasionally, but he then added that sometimes torture can get to the truth.30 The weakness of the Burundian Parliament and the judiciary also constitute obstacle to human rights protection. Dominated by the CNDD-FDD, Parliament almost entirely fails to meet its obligation to monitor State agencies. The judicial power's dependency on the executive power and local authorities also hampers the launch of unbiased investigations into torture cases. Contrary to what the statute of the judiciary requires, judges and prosecutors are not recruited through competitions; rather, they are appointed by the Minister of Justice. Not only they are at the mercy of the government for their appointement, but they can also be transferred or suspended for having shown signs of independence or having issued verdicts that went against the interests of the governing power.31 In cases involving torture, they are regularly subjected to pressure and may even be threatened by the authorities; they may then refuse to order an investigation or to prosecute the suspects. The judicial system's infrastructures and material are outdated. Furthermore, local courts depend on the local authorities whim for the assignment of vehicles, the purchase and the maintenance of facilities. Judges who disagree with the local
214
215
administration may be denied the materials needed to open or conduct an investigation.32 As for human resources, the sector suffers from a lack of properly qualified employees, partly because of the low wages offered. All these weaknesses considerably delay the processing of criminal files, hinder the proper course of investigations (poor quality of interrogations, loss of evidence, witness tampering) and foster errors in the qualification of offences. Due to an insufficient number of bailiffs, the communication of the decisions and therefore their application is delayed.33 In a country with few resources, some police officers and judges yield to corruption and close sensitive cases with complete impunity, considering the absence of anticorruption administrative procedures. The lack of justice in cases of attacks on human rights, whether committed in the past or perpetrated more recently, contributes to an environment in which victims and their families shy away from police stations and the courts and turn to mob justice, which has become commonplace in nearly all the country's provinces.34
[16] Amnesty International, A step backwards Torture and other Ill-treatment by Burundi's National Intelligence Service, 23 August 2010, 8 pages, p. 2-3, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR16/002/2010/en/758d5167-cd6c-43fd-b671bd13936017bd/afr160022010en.pdf. [17] United Nations, Committee against Torture, 37th Session, Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture, Burundi, CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, 15 February 2007, 9 pages, p. 3, http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b4043c1256a450044 f331/3955de032fa0b65ac12572b300472caa/$FILE/G0740491.pdf. [18] U.S. Department of State, Office of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, op. cit.; HRW, World Report 2011: Burundi, 24 January 2011, http://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2011/burundi. [19] United Nations, Human Rights Council, 12th Session, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights and the activities of her Office in Burundi, A/HRC/12/43, 31 August 2009, 22 pages, p. 10, http://www2. ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A.HRC.12.43.pdf. [20] U.S. Department of State, Office of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, op. cit. [21] Amnesty International, op. cit., p. 3. [22] Republic of Burundi, Law No. 1/05 of 22 April 2009 reforming the Criminal Code, Art. 205. [23] Republic of Burundi, Law No. 1/015 of 20 July 1999 reforming the Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 1-5. [24] United Nations, Human Rights Council, op. cit., p. 10. [25] Republic of Burundi, Law No. 1/03 of 25 January 2010 concerning the organisation and operation of the Ombudsman, 11 pages, http://www.assemblee.bi/IMG/pdf/loi_n1-03_du_25_janvier_2010.pdf. [26] Ibid., Art. 6; HRW, Closing doors? The Narrowing of Democratic Space in Burundi, 23 November 2010, 75 pages, p. 62, http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/burundi1110WebVersion.pdf. [27] United Nations Office in Burundi, Prestation de serment des membres de la CNIDH, La Reprsentante Spciale du Secrtaire Gnral des Nations Unies au Burundi exhorte les membres de la CNIDH rpondre aux aspirations des populations burundaises [Swearing-in of CNIDH members; The Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General in Burundi calls on CNDIH members to meet the aspirations of Burundi's populations], 7 June 2011, http://bnub.unmissions.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=yQOT 8aBukp4%3D&tabid=2982&language=en-US. [28] HRW, op. cit., p. 73. [29] Amnesty International, op. cit., p. 4-5. [30] Ibid., p. 5. [31] HRW, op. cit., p. 15. [32] Iteka and FIDH, op. cit., p. 23. [33] United Nations, Security Council, op. cit., p. 9. [34] United Nations, Human Rights Council, op. cit., p.18.
[1] United Nations, Security Council, Seventh report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Integrated Office in Burundi, S/2010/608, 30 November 2010, 17 pages, p. 4, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/654/02/PDF/N1065402. pdf?OpenElement. [2] United Nations, Human Rights Council, 9th session, Report of the independent expert on the situation of human rights in Burundi, Akich Okola, A/HRC/9/14, 15 August 2008, 21 pages, p. 1, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/150/85/PDF/ G0815085.pdf?OpenElement. [3] United Nations, Security Council, op. cit., p. 9. [4] Ligue burundaise des Droits de lhomme (Iteka) [Human Rights League of Burundi] and Fdration internationale des ligues des droits de lHomme (FIDH) [International Federation for Human Rights], Burundi - Les lections de 2010 : un test ne pas rater pour consolider la paix [Burundi, The 2010 elections: A test that must be passed to consolidate the peace], No. 539F, May 2010, 56 pages, p. 35-36, http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/Burundi_elections-06.pdf. [5] Amnesty International, Burundi - Amnesty International Report 2010, Human Rights in Republic of Burundi, http://www.amnesty. org/en/region/burundi/report-2010. [6] Ibidem. [7] Most of them come from the old FLN rebellion. [8] Contribution of ACAT-France as part of the alert network against impunity in Africa (Bosembo bulletin), September 2010. [9] ACAT-France, LUnion europenne doit appeler les autorits burundaises renouveler lagrment de la reprsentante de HRW au Burundi [The European Union must call on Burundi's authorities to renew the approval of HRW's representative in Burundi], letter sent to Alain Darthenucq, Head of the European Union's Delegation in Bujumbura, 26 May 2010. [10] Iteka and FIDH, op. cit., p. 16. [11] US Department of State, Office of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 2009 Human Rights Report: Burundi, 11 March 2010, 34 pages, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/af/135941.htm. [12] Iteka and FIDH, op. cit., p. 15. [13] Association for the Protection of Human Rights and Detained Persons (APRODH) and Human Rights Watch (HRW), Mob Justice in Burundi, Official Complicity and Impunity, 93 pages, p. 17, http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/ burundi0310webwcover.pdf [14] Ibid., p. 25. [15] Law No. 1/04 of 2 March 2006 on the creation, organisation and operation of the National Intelligence Service.
216
217
ETHIOPIA
PRACTICE OF TORTURE
Widely used in the past, torture is still very much present within law enforcement bodies as a means of interrogation in criminal investigations, due to the lack of training in human rights and investigation methods that would permit to obtain evidence without resorting to violence. The continued practice of torture stems above all from the lack of political will to stop it. Throughout recent years, the government has multiplied emergency measures that are conducive to excesses, particularly the anti-terrorism law,1 which authorizes a police officer to arrest without a warrant anyone whom he reasonably suspects to have committed or is committing a terrorist act.2 As for the regions in conflict, Somali and Oromia, they are subjected to a state of exception that de facto resembles a state of emergency.
BACKGROUND
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Africa's second most populated country, consists of nine regional States forming a mosaic of ethnic groups. In 1991, the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), controlled by the Tigrayan ethnic group, overthrew the military-communist dictatorship of Mengistu Haile Mariam, the Derg (responsible for the elimination of several thousand opponents between 1975 and 1991), following a bloody civil war. After his victory in the general elections of 15 May 2005, which was contested by the opposition, the EPRDF coalition headed by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi launched a murderous repression against demonstrators protesting the results. 193 of these were killed, according to Ethiopian judge Wolde-Michael Meshesha, who issued a report on these events before leaving the country due to pressure and death threats he received to change these findings. The ruling party subsequently increased its stranglehold on the administration and further reduced the democratic space: intimidations and sanctions against the opposition, silencing the independent media that do not convey the government's positions, restrictions on freedom of association and assembly The EPRDF, an authoritarian Party-State, won the 23 May 2010 parliamentary elections with 99.6% of the votes under conditions deemed largely unfair by observers from the European Union; it exercises complete political control over Ethiopia. On the military front, the country has been plagued with numerous low-intensity conflicts since the early 1980s against armed separatist opposition groups with ethnic undertones in the regions of Oromia and Somali the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF). The Ethiopian authorities also face an unresolved territorial dispute with Eritrea that has led to war between 1998 and 2000, causing the deaths of over 100,000 people.
Victims
The profile of potential torture victims varies and depends, in part, on the status of persons and on their ethnicity. The primary targets of torture are people of the Oromo and Somali ethnic groups, deemed disloyal by the government; members of opposition parties, particularly those with ethnic undertones like the Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC); student protesters and dissidents; independent journalists critical of the regime; and persons considered to be terrorists. Thus, in March 2011, the Ethiopian authorities arbitrarily captured over 200 Oromos: politicians, public officials, professors and students associated with the OFC and Oromo Federalist Democratic Movement (OFDM) parties.3 Many of them were beaten at the time of their arrest.4 Those arrested as part of combating armed opposition groups, whether alleged members or alleged sympathizers, are also regularly tortured by the military. In recent years, thousands of Oromo and Somali civilians have been arrested5 and often subjected to torture and ill-treatment. On 29 November 2007, Mulatu Aberra, a 34-year-old Oromo merchant, already arrested twice because of his supposed links with the OLF, was arrested once more time for the same reason. Taken to a secret cell located in the basement of the police station in the city of Harar, he was subjected to torture and denied the medical care required as a result of his injuries. Due to a lack of evidence, he was finally released on 1 July 2008 on bail of 3,000 birrs (around 150 dollars). He fled the country a few weeks later. Crackdown on political opponents escalates during elections. Back to the May 2010 legislative elections, 1,200 supporters of the OFC were arrested6 and sometimes brutalized by security forces at the time of their arrest, before joining the growing ranks of political prisoners already held in Ethiopia, often in secret detention*.
218
219
According to the OFC, activist Biyansa Daba was beaten to death at his home on 7 april 2010 because of his political activities.7 Such abuse is often combined with sexual assault for female victims, as was the case during the campaign of rapes orchestrated by special police forces in 2009 in the zones of Degehabur and Kebredehar, in the Ogaden region.8 In 2007, the government under the pretext of fighting terrorism kidnapped dozens of suspected terrorists of various nationalities in Kenya and Somalia, with the consent of the States concerned and the support of the United States. Interrogated at the Ethiopia's Awassa military base, the suspects were subjected to torture and were detained in secret for periods as long as five months.
Acts of ill-treatment and torture are also carried out outside, in uninhabited areas such as forests and fields, and publicly in villages situated in conflict zones, to discourage local inhabitants from supporting rebels. In rural areas, schools and clinics are often converted into torture centres.

The techniques used by various perpetrators of torture are many and include, for example, beatings, focused particularly on the genitals; falaqa*; castration; waterboarding*; threatening to infect with HIV through contaminated needles; attaching full bottles weighing 1.5 lbs to the testicles; forcing the victim to walk barefoot on broken glass or to climb up and down stairs for hours, sometimes while carrying as much as 175 lbs; forced drugging; humiliation by spitting on or insulting the victim, or forcing victims to eat their own feces and drink their own urine or blood.11 Torturers seek to obtain information and confessions in investigations, and to get victims to sign prepared declarations of belonging to a political party or an armed opposition group.

In Ethiopia, members of the various law enforcement and intelligence agencies are guilty of torture. These include federal police agents under the control of the Ministry of Federal Affairs particularly those from the antiterrorist task force, largely composed of Tigrayans , soldiers from the Ethiopian National Defense Force, personnel of the National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS) and jail guards. In its 2008 report, the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission created in July 2000 to monitor detention centres reported several cases of ill-treatment and torture at the hands of prison staff in some of the 35 facilities it was able to visit.9 The bodies in charge of security at the regional level, including the police, make a disproportionate use of force, especially in counter-insurgency operations. In the regions of Oromia and Somali, confusion prevails over the respective roles of the army and the police in criminal matters, while private militias, granted functions normally reserved for the police, also engage in human rights violations. Sometimes committed at the time of arrest, torture essentially takes place during detention. Abuses are perpetrated while in police custody, during interrogations held at the express request, with the consent, or with the participation of superior officers. According to reliable sources, representatives of local authorities sometimes attend sessions of torture of individuals seen as political opponents. Among the official places of detention police stations, 3 federal prisons and 120 regional prisons , the Federal Police Crime Investigation Department, called Maikelawi, is particularly infamous for the abuses inflicted on political prisoners. There also exist numerous illegal or clandestine detention centres in the country, especially in the cities of Dedessa, Bir Sheleko, Tolay, Hormat, Blate, Tatek, Jijiga, Holeta and Senkele, mostly located in military camps10 or in private homes and in the basements of public buildings, where torture is practiced.

As a party to the United Nations Convention against Torture since 1994, Ethiopia submitted its initial report fourteen years too late; in it, it outlines the measures taken to comply with the commitments imposed by the UN text. In theory, signatory States must present this report to the UN Committee Against Torture* (CAT) within one year following the entry into force of the Convention. Article 18.1 of the Federal Constitution, in force since 1995, prohibits any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment yet does so without actually using the word torture.12 Under Article 28.1, summary executions, enforced disappearances* and torture are considered imprescriptible. The regional Constitutions include similar provisions. The Criminal Code, revised in 2004, refers to torture in its Article 424 on improper methods, but it proposes a much narrower definition than that provided for in the UN Convention: it does not specify the degree of pain or suffering, nor does it cover all of the purposes of the use of torture, since it excludes punishment, intimidation and
220
221
pressure on the victim or a third party, and discrimination.13 The penalties provided for in the article range from a fine to a prison term of up to ten years. The acts of torture that do not fall under this definition can, therefore, only be sanctioned as abuse of power,14 an offence punished by sentences ranging from one to twenty-five years imprisonment.15 In the context of war crimes, perpetrators of torture face prison sentences of five to twenty years, or even life imprisonment or capital punishment.16 The 1961 Code of Criminal Procedure also lists actions that police officers and other individuals under the authority of the State are forbidden from resorting to during investigations.17 Several regulations and directives regarding the conduct of law enforcement officers,18 adopted between 1998 and 2007, prohibit torture and provide for disciplinary sanctions, dismissal and criminal prosecution for the perpetrators.19 Contrary to the government's commitments, there are many obstacles to gaining access to places of detention. International organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) cannot inspect federal prisons where individuals suspected of crimes against State security are held, the Maikelawi centre20 and detention facilities in the region of Somali, from which the ICRC was expelled in 2007.

Despite this ban on torture, torturers enjoy almost complete impunity. For fear of reprisals, victims hesitate to file complaints with prison administration authorities, the courts or the police, which rarely meets its obligation to investigate. Furthermore, there is no specialized, independent and effective mechanism to hear complaints, to investigate allegations of torture in a prompt and impartial way, or to ensure that the guilty parties are brought up for trial. The Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, mandated to review complaints of alleged human rights violations, cannot initiate prosecutions, and the government does not follow up on its findings. The authorities tend to deny any accusation of human rights violations, and refuse international requests for investigations within the country as well as requests from the Special Procedures* of the United Nations Human Rights Council. To address the concerns of the international community, they will, occasionally, conduct sham investigations. In its report submitted to the CAT in July 2009, Ethiopia does not mention a single torture- or abuse-related prosecution or conviction of, or sanction imposed against, soldiers, police or prison staff members. It also provides no information on judicial decisions granting compensation to victims of acts of torture and ill-treatment or to their families.
Likewise, the Ethiopian government rewrote the initial report of the parliamentary commission of inquiry on the 2005 post-election violence, which concluded to the excessive use of force by the police, before its presentation to Parliament, in order not to implicate law enforcement agencies.21 As regards to the killings, torture, rapes and arbitrary detentions perpetrated in 2007 by the military during counterinsurgency operations against the FNLO in the Somali region, they have not led to a single investigation to this day. In an attempt to silence local NGOs, the authorities adopted Law No. 621/200922 in 2009, which prohibits associations receiving more than 10% of their financing from foreign sources from working on human rights and democracy issues, the promotion of national reconciliation and conflict resolution, or the improvement of the administration of justice. Certain organizations, such as the Ethiopian Human Rights Council, the Ethiopian Bar Association and the Rehabilitation Centre for Victims of Torture in Ethiopia, have consequently reduced or suspended their activities. The judiciary, which is theoretically independent, is subjected to threats and frequent interferences from the executive branch, especially in criminal procedures. Out of fear of losing their jobs, if not their very lives, many judges do not investigate allegations of torture, and admit evidence obtained under duress against the victim, contrary to constitutional guarantees and to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Those who resisted political pressure, acquitted and released persons charged with terrorist acts or crimes against the State, were fired.
[1] Federal Democratic Republic of Nigeria, Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009, 28 August 2009, http://www.unhcr.org/ refworld/pdfid/4ba799d32.pdf. [2] Ibidem, Part Three, 19.1/. [3] Human Rights Watch, Ethiopia: Free Opposition Members, Mass Arrests of Over 200 Ethnic Oromo Appear Politically Motivated, 6 April 2011, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/04/06/ethiopia-free-opposition-members. [4] ACAT-France, Demande de libration des prisonniers oromos, dtenus sans inculpation [Request for the release of Oromo prisoners, detained without charge], letter addressed to Ethiopian Prime Minister Mles Zenawi, 7 April 2011. [5] ACAT-France, thiopie (Ogaden) : Craintes de torture [Ethiopia (Ogaden): Fears of torture], Urgent Appeal, 24 November 2008, http://www.acatfrance.fr/appel_urgent_detail.php?id=131. [6] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2010 Human Rights Report: Ethiopia, 8 April 2011, 56 pages, p. 13, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160121.pdf. [7] Amnesty International, Annual Report 2011, The state of the world's human rights, Ethiopia, http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/ ethiopia/report-2011. [8] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, op. cit., p. 18. [9] United Nations, Committee against Torture, Initial reports of States parties due in 1995: Ethiopia, CAT/C/ETH/1, 16 February 2010, 18 pages, p. 17-18, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G10/411/13/PDF/G1041113.pdf?OpenElement. [10] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, op. cit., p. 6. [11] Oromia Support Group (OSG), Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Committee Against Torture, 45th Session, Written information for the examination of the Ethiopia's initial report under Article 20 (1) of the Convention, November 2010, 14 pages, p. 5, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/NGO's /OSG_Ethiopia45.pdf; The Advocates for Human Rights, Human rights in Ethiopia: Through the Eyes of the Oromo Diaspora, December 2009, 96 pages, p. 39-43, http://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/uploads/oromo_report_2009_color.pdf.
222
[12] Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 21 August 2005, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,LEGAL ,,LEGISLATION,ETH,,3ae6b5a84,0.html. [13] Criminal Code of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Proclamation No. 414 of 2004, 9 May 2005, Art. 424.(1): Any public servant charged with the arrest, custody, supervision, escort or interrogation of a person who is under suspicion, under arrest, summoned to appear before a Court of justice, detained or serving a sentence, who, in the performance of his duties, improperly induces or gives a promise, threatens or treats the person concerned in an improper or brutal manner, or in a manner which is incompatible with human dignity or his office, especially by the use of blows, cruelty or physical or mental torture, be it to obtain a statement or a confession, or to any other similar end, or to make him give a testimony in a favorable manner is punishable, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/49216b572.pdf. [14] United Nations, Committee against Torture, 45th session, Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture, Ethiopia, CAT/C/ETH/CO/1, 20 January 2011, 15 pages, p. 2, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/403/99/PDF/G1140399. pdf?OpenElement. [15] Criminal Code of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, art. 407. [16] Ibidem, art. 270-272. [17] Criminal Procedure Code of Ethiopia, Proclamation No. 185 of 1961, 2 November 1961, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/ pdfid/492163ac2.pdf. [18] United Nations, Committee against Torture, Initial reports of States parties due in 1995, Ethiopia, 16 February 2010, 18 pages, p. 14. [19] Ibid, p. 2: Regulation No. 44/1998 of the Council of Ministers regarding the Administration of Federal Prosecutors; Regulation No. 86/2003 regarding the Administration of the Federal Police Commission; Regulation No. 137/2007 of the Council of Ministers regarding the Treatment of Federal Prisoners and the Administration of Defense Forces. [20] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, op. cit., p. 7. [21] Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Watch's Submission to the Committee against Torture on Ethiopia, September 2010, 14 pages, p. 14, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/NGO's /HRW_Ethipia45.pdf. [22] Federal Democratic Republic of Nigeria, Charities and Societies Proclamation No. 621/2009, 13 February 2009, Section One, 2.3/, Section Three, 14.2/ and 14.5/, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4ba7a0cb2.pdf.
224
225
GAMBIA
PRACTICE OF TORTURE
Acts of torture are commonplace in Gambia. Any citizen may be labeled as a government's enemy overnight, or may have to face the Head of State's eccentricities and suffer their consequences. In March 2009, after the death of his aunt, which he attributed to black magic, Yahya Jammeh brought so-called witchdoctors from Guinea and Burkina Faso. Accompanied by members of the State Guard and the security and intelligence forces, they allegedly subjected thousands of villagers of the Foni Kansala district, suspected of witchcraft, to ill-treatment. They are said, particularly, to have forced them to drink hallucinogenic beverages that would have caused the deaths of at least six people.2
BACKGROUND
This small State, surrounded by Senegal but with access to the sea, is one of West Africa's most popular tourist destinations. Thousands of vacationers, mainly from Northern Europe, go there each year to enjoy the sun, the Atlantic Ocean and the white sand beaches. For them, Gambia looks like a true paradise. However, it is a different tale for its inhabitants. Since he seized power in July 1994 through a military coup, the President of the Republic, Yahya Jammeh, along with his party, the Alliance for Patriotic Reorientation and Construction (APRC), has ruled the country with a heavy hand. Gambia, which hosts the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR), is itself the site of massive human rights violations. Between 1994 and 2006, Yahya Jammeh survived six coup attempts. Since then, the Head of State has maintained a climate of terror and oppression against anyone likely to represent a threat, sees plots everywhere, purges both the army and the government regularly, and has not hesitated to have those formerly close to him tortured, sentenced to death, or disappeared. To stifle any kind of political or social opposition, he multiplies repressive measures (arbitrary arrests and detentions) against opponents, civil society actors, and independent journalists. In August 2011, the intelligence services threatened to close radio station Taranga FM if it did not cease to broadcast a press review that quoted newspapers deemed to belong to the opposition, a warning related to the coming presidential election, set for 24 November 2011, according to human rights NGOs.1 Yahya Jammeh, who had stated his intention to remain at the helm of the country for the next forty years during the 2006 election campaign, has run for a new mandate in an election without much surprise.
Victims
Any person suspected of wanting to organize a coup, of participating in one, or of supporting such an initiative may be arrested arbitrarily and tortured while in custody. The main targets belong to the State apparatus: government employees, military or police personnel, intelligence agents For example, in April 2007, Yahya Bajinka, an intelligence officer at the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), and eight members of his family were jailed by elements of the service after his brother, Khalipha Bajinka a former major in the national army and presidential bodyguard escaped the country after being accused of plotting a coup. Yahya Bajinka and his relatives were subjected to all kinds of ill-treatment to give information regarding the fugitive: My brother was slapped right in front of me slapped so hard that I could see blood coming out of his nose. They would open your mouth, put an AK-27 inside and threaten to blow your head off. They would put electric shocks on your body.3 Similarly, Demba Dem, a ruling party Member of Parliament known for his sometimes contrary positions to the government's , was summoned to NIA headquarters in March 2006, then taken to Mile 2, the central jail of the capital, Banjul. Held there for three hours, Demba Dem was then taken back to NIA and appeared before 35 members of the force. They told me that they were there to investigate me because according to them, I played a role in the foiled coup. They started asking me so many questions and I refused to talk. That was the time the head of the panel told me that by the time the green boys [Note: members of the State Guard] were through with me, I would want to talk and then their doors would be closed. He was tortured during the night: My hands were tied, my head was covered with a black plastic bag... They poured cold water on me and the four men from the State Guard started beating. They beat me until I became unconscious. They lifted me up and took me out to face the panel
226
227
again. Demba Dem once again kept silent, and was taken back to his cell and tortured again by the State Guard. The same beating continued until they realized that they would kill me but I wouldnt talk. They took me to Mile 2 where they kept me for four months before charging me with treason and conspiracy to commit treason. Discharged and released a year later by the Supreme Court, the former now lives with his family in Europe.4 All citizens suspected of wanting to destabilize the country are also frequently exposed to acts of torture: students, journalists, lawyers, political opponents and human rights defenders seen as contacts for foreign conspirators. On 21 September 2009, during a speech which was broadcast on state-run television and radio stations, the President gave the following warning: If you are affiliated with any human rights group, rest assured that your security and personal safety would not be guaranteed by my government. [] We are ready to kill saboteurs.5 Since his arrest on 7 July 2006 by two plainclothes NIA agents, Daily Observer reporter Ebrima Manneh has been missing. According to the newspaper's former chief editor, his colleague was arrested for having tried to publish a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) article criticizing the lack of democracy in Gambia, on the occasion of the African Union Summit of Heads of State and Government held in the country. According to Demba Jawo, former president of the Gambian Press Union, Ebrima Manneh was arrested because of a report on the murder of Ghanaian immigrants in Gambia in 2005. The government claims it has no information on that case. However, several reliable sources have reported his detention in January 2007 at the Fatoto police station (a small town located some 400 km east of the capital), then in Mile 2 in July 2007, before his transfer to a hospital in 2008, in poor physical condition. According to a policeman at the central jail, who spoke anonymously, he died in custody.6 Individuals suspected of crimes, particularly drug trafficking or corruption, and Gambians who seek to flee the country, considered outcasts, also run the risk of being subjected to torture and ill-treatment. For example, on 5 August 2010, the lawyers for former inspector general of police Ensa Badjie and commander of the military police unit, Lieutenant-Colonel Matarr Mam Secka, both on trial for corruption, told the judges their customers had been tortured to force them to confess their crime. Finally, homosexuals, who are guilty of an unnatural offence according to the 1965 Criminal Code, as amended in 2005,7 bisexuals and transsexuals are also targets. In a statement made to the press on 15 May 2008, Yahya Jammeh allegedly threatened to behead any homosexual arrested in the country.8

All prison staff members as well as security and intelligence forces officers are potential torturers. Police officers, answerable to the Secretary for the Interior and charged with public security, have the power to arrest and detain people for civil offences, and often resort to torture as part of this daily work. Torture occurs in official detention centres (police stations in Banjul, particularly the headquarters, and in the rest of the country, especially those of Bundung, Sara Ngai and Fatoto) and in prisons, especially Mile 2 and the Jeshwang and Janjanbureh jails located inland. Officially, the roughly 2,300 soldiers of the Gambia National Army (GNA), in charge of external security and commanded by the Minister of Defence a position held by the Head of State since 1997 , do not enjoy the same prerogatives, but that does not prevent them from making arrests, illegally holding prisoners in their facilities, or committing acts of torture. Those most feared are the Green boys, who are responsible for the President's personal protection, and sometimes wear a mask during interrogations, to avoid being recognized. NIA agents assigned to the protection and security of Yahya Jammeh are allowed to question and detain any individual accused of crimes against the security of the State or of economic crimes; they also count among the torturers. The agency allegedly even has units that specialize in torture. NIA headquarters, located barely 15 km from the tourist hotels on the coast, are well-known places of torture, intended for the president's political adversaries and for people suspected of attempting a coup. They shelter an infamous dungeon, the underground cell of Bambadinka (literally, the crocodile pond), small, dark, mosquito-infected, where those being tortured sleep on the bare floor and receive but a piece of bread and less than one litre of water per day.9 Finally, the country has illegal detention facilities for alleged enemies of the regime: secret prisons located in the police training centre in Banjulinding and in military camps, for example those of the Fort Buling barracks, and unofficial jails installed on the premises of police task forces, in warehouses, or simply in private homes, as happens in the Head of State's hometown, Kanilai.
228
229

The authors of torture resort mainly to beatings with blunt objects; to electric shocks, particularly on the genitals; to suffocations, which consist in asphyxiating the victim by immersing his head in water for a long time or by obstructing his respiratory tracts with a plastic bag; to cigarette burns; and to hours-long binding using handcuffs, ropes or metal chains. Psychological torture* (strippings, death threats, mock executions during which, for example, the detainee is forced to dig a hole intended for his body) is also part of the torturers standard stock. For them, the idea is to punish those supposedly opposed to the authorities, to obtain information regarding the opposition or possible coup attempts, and to extract confessions which will then be used by civil and military judges during the trials.

At a national level, there is no organization tasked with promoting and protecting human rights. The Ombudsman's office, created in 1997 but still not widely known, is given a limited mandate that does not allow it to inquire into attacks on human rights, and has yet to release any report on its activities in 2010. The police has a unit assigned to hearing individual complaints about allegations of ill-treatment committed by its officers. In 2009, this department recorded several complaints and some police officers received disciplinary sanctions.10 Nevertheless, to the knowledge of ACAT-France, no member of the security or intelligence forces has been convicted for acts of torture. The trial of three NIA officers and an agent of the Antidrug Brigade who were indicted for having beaten and wounded alleged drug traffickers in May 2009,11 resulting in serious bodily harm, has been postponed repeatedly.12 Impunity prevails over justice. Since the last aborted coup attempt against Yahya Jammeh in 2006, the fear of being arrested and assaulted grips the population. Many Gambians know people who suffered ill-treatment or even torture merely on suspicion of belonging to the opposition. This climate of general terror has fostered a culture of silence: almost total disappearance of public protests, self-censure by reporters, withdrawal of human rights defenders and civil society actors, and silence from the victims and their families, out of fear of being subjected to reprisals. Most of those who continued to look into or work on issues related to human rights have received threats and were forced to flee the country. Since 1994, at least 27 journalists have left Gambia.13 In any event, those rare individuals who do call out for justice can hardly count on the judicial system, which has lost any independence it ever had regarding the executive branch. Acting in clear violation of the Constitution, the political authorities have suspended High Court magistrates who did not embrace their positions, particularly by issuing release orders for inmates, which the government has ignored. At the international level, Gambia does not respect foreign rulings, especially those from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). On 5 June 2008, the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice demanded the immediate release of reporter Ebrima Manneh and sentenced Gambia to pay 100,000 dollars in damages to his family.14 In November 2008, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that the imprisonment of Ebrima Manneh was illegal, and called on the Gambian authorities to release him immediately. In April 2009, six US senators also asked for his release.15 The government, which has consistently denied any involvement in the reporter's imprisonment and disappearance, has stubbornly

The unitarian Republic of the Gambia is a member State of the United Nations and the African Union (AU). The country ratified several conventions on human rights forbidding the use of torture, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1979 and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights in 1983. It signed the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, in 1985, but has yet to ratify it. Thus, all Gambians and their representatives may claim for their rights before the United Nations agencies in charge of human rights. They may file a complaint (communication*) with the UN Human Rights Committee or notify the Special Rapporteurs* charged with human rights violations. Gambian NGOs and nationals may also make a complaint to the African Court of Justice and Human Rights. Domestically, Article 21 of Chapter IV of the 1997 Constitution states that: No person shall be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment.
230
refused to cooperate with the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice, to appear before it, or to abide by its verdict, in violation of Articles 3 and 4 of the regional organization's establishing treaty. In March 2011, the Head of State did mention the death of Ebrima Manneh for the first time, while reaffirming that the government had nothing to do with it.16
[1] Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Gambian security agency threatens to close radio station, 12 August 2011, http://www.cpj.org/2011/08/gambian-security-agency-threatens-to-close-radio-s.php; Media Foundation for West Africa, The Gambia ALERT: Gambian authorities censor Taranga FM again, 16 August 2011, http://www.mediafound.org/index. php?option=com_content&task=view&id=732&Itemid=46&lang=en. [2] ACAT-France, Demande douverture dune enqute sur la chasse aux sorciers [Demand for the launching of an inquiry into the witch hunt], letter sent to the President of the Republic, Yahya Jammeh, 23 April 2009. [3] The Gambia's secret torture chambers, Rnw.nl/africa, 12 March 2010, http://www.rnw.nl/africa/article/ gambia%E2%80%99s-secret-torture-chambers; ACAT-France, Risque de dcs de Monsieur Yahya Bajinka pour privation de soins mdicaux [Risk of death for Mr Yahya Bajinka due to lack of medical attention], letter sent to the Secretary of State for Justice, Marie Saine-Firdaus, 26 March 2008, http://www.acatfrance.fr/medias/etat_lieux_pays/doc/Courrier_Gambie_26_mars_2008. pdf. [4] Idem. [5] Reporters Without Borders for Freedom of Information, Predator of Press Freedom: Yahya Jammeh, 3 May 2011, http://en.rsf. org/gambie-yahya-jammeh-28-04-2010,37195.html; ACAT-France, Garantir lintgrit physique et psychologique de tous les dfenseurs des droits de lhomme en Gambie [Guaranteeing the physical and psychological integrity of all human rights defenders in Gambia], letter sent to the Head of State, 1 October 2009. [6] ACAT-France, Gambie : Disparition force [Gambia: Forced disappearance], Urgent Appeal, 26 July 2010, http://www.acatfrance.fr/medias/appel_urgent/doc/AU_30_Gambie-Colombie.pdf. [7] International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA), State-sponsored Homophobia, A world survey of laws criminalising same-sex sexual acts between consenting adults, May 2011, 63 pages, p. 23, http://old.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2011.pdf. [8] Amnesty International, 2009 Report, Human Rights in Republic of the Gambia, http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/gambia/ report-2009. [9] The Gambia's secret torture chambers. [10] US Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2010 Human Rights Report: Gambia, 8 April 2011, 27 pages, p. 5, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160123.pdf. [11] Amnesty International, Climate of fear continues: Enforced disappearances, killings and torture in Gambia, 22 June 2011, 7 pages, p. 7, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR27/001/2011/en/e5acba67-e8f2-4a86-b1e8-975b48e9baab/ afr270012011en.pdf [12] Gambia: Failure to Serve Subpoena Drags NIA Torture Case, AllAfrica.com, 15 June 2011, http://allafrica.com/ stories/201106160228.html [13] Amnesty International, Gambia fear rules, November 2008, 56 pages, p. 37, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ AFR27/003/2008/en/30a2b452-ac16-11dd-82c3-e1668308520f/afr270032008en.pdf. [14] "La Gambie condamne aprs la disparition dun journaliste" [Gambia condemned after the disappearance of a reporter], Rfi.fr, 7 June 2008, http://www.rfi.fr/actufr/articles/102/article_67192.asp. [15] ACAT-France, op. cit., p. 4. [16] CPJ, Jammeh must disclose knowledge of Manneh's fate, 6 July 2011, http://www.cpj.org/2011/07/gambia-jammeh-knowledgeof-mannehs-fate.php.
232
233
MAURITANIA
PRACTICE OF TORTURE
Torture a legacy of successive dictatorships is widely practiced, both on common law detainees and on individuals arrested for political reasons. It is particularly used as an investigation method: cases of torture and ill-treatment are regularly reported during times spent in police custody, which can last fifteen days in the case of a felony or misdemeanor against the interior or exterior security of the State.1
Victims
Individuals arrested for ordinary offences, such as theft or drug trafficking, constitute the main victims of torture. The poorest among them, lacking powerful families or tribal connections, with no network of influence, are particularly exposed to ill-treatment. Since 2003, several dozen known or suspected Islamists, including imams and religious leaders, and individuals accused of having ties to the Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), have been arrested in the name of the War on Terror and systematically subjected to torture. For example, in August 2009, Taher Ould Biy, an alleged Islamist, complained of having suffered mistreatment while in detention, like other Salafist (fundamentalist Sunni) prisoners of the central prison in Nouakchott, the capital. Similarly, three Malians, Sidi Ould Sidina, Maarouf Ould Haiba and Mohamed Ould Chabarnou, suspected of belonging to the AQIM and involved in the 24 December 2007 killings of four French nationals, were sentenced to death by the Criminal Court of Nouakchott on 25 May 2010, based on confessions allegedly obtained after long sessions of torture, according to the statements they made to Amnesty International and their lawyers. Although officially applicable, the death penalty has not been carried out since 1987. Under the pretext of fighting terrorism, a number of members of the military accused of attempting a coup are also arrested and subjected to abuse. Individuals who publicly challenge the government in power are also affected. Thus, following the August 2008 military putsch, security forces used excessive force to suppress several peaceful protesters who were demanding the restoration of constitutional order. On 19 April 2009, many women, including the former Minister of Education, Nebghouha Mint Mohamed Vall, who had organized a sit-in in front of the United Nations office in Nouakchott2 to denounce risks of political drift were kicked, beaten with truncheons and whipped with belts by police officers. One of them, Chicha Mint Benna, the daughter of the president of the Mauritanian Labor Party, lost consciousness and had to be hospitalized.3
BACKGROUND
Since gaining independence in 1960, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania has seen a procession of authoritarian civil and military regimes, mostly following coups dtat. In August 2005, after more than thirty years at the head of the country, President Maaouya Ould Taya having himself risen to power through a putsch was overthrown by a military coup. The junta in place carried out a democratic transition, marked by the adoption of a new Constitution in June 2006 and by the March 2007 election of Sidi Mohamed Ould Cheikh Abdallahi as President of the Republic, following an election which international observers qualified as free and transparent. However, in August 2008, following disagreements between the Head of State and some military leaders, Sidi Mohamed Ould Cheih Abdallahi was ousted by General Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz. After a long period of constitutional instability, the latter resigned from the army in April 2009 to run for the July 2009 presidential election. The voting results, contested by the main opposition parties as well as by the National Independent Electoral Commission, declared the former general the winner. Born in the wake of the Arab revolutions with an initial protest on 25 February 2011, the movement known as the 25 February Youth organized numerous rallies to demand economic, social and political reforms, including the lowering of prices for basic goods and the resignation of the current administration.
234
235
Human rights defenders also run the risk of being ill-treated and tortured. For example, on 2 April 2009, Boubacar Messaoud, member of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and president of SOS-Slaves (SOS-Esclaves), along with several parliamentarians, was beaten by police officers during a non-violent march against the presidential election programmed for 6 June 2009.4 Targeted by a group of four police officers, the activist was brought to his knees, hit with a bat, then severely hit and dragged into the trunk of an unmarked car. Passers-by recognized Boubacar Ould Messaoud, alerted the crowd, and managed to make his assaulters flee. Similarly, Biram Ould Dah Ould Abeid, president of the non-recognized NGO Initiative for the Resurgence of the Abolitionist Movement in Mauritania (Initiative pour la Rsurgence du Mouvement Abolitionniste en Mauritanie, IRA) was beaten by members of the municipal police department of the town of Arafat on 13 December 2010. He had uncovered an alleged case of slavery involving two juvenile girls, and protested the conditions for the hearing set for them by the police superintendent. Bikram Ould Dah Ould Abeid, who was beaten and sustained injuries to his head and knee, had to receive medical treatment. Finally, according to the National Order of Lawyers, torture is commonplace in prisons.5 Inmates suspected of wanting to escape are continually beaten and have their feet and wrists shackled, while others may face beatings and ill-treatment anytime.
Most abuse is committed in official detention centres (police and gendarmerie stations, prisons like those of Dar Nam in Nouakchott and of Nouadhibou, in the north-west of the country), in police or military facilities (gendarmerie barracks, police schools and companies, navy premises, army headquarters, Directorate of Territorial Security), but also in unofficial locations like private homes. It would also appear there is a team that specializes in torture,6 whose members wear a mask to avoid identification and prey particularly on suspected Islamists. Finally, agents of Moroccan security forces may also have participated in the abuse of those suspected of Islamism in the course of interrogations,7 which implies interstate cooperation.

Torture techniques reported in Mauritania include immobilization of detainees in painfully contorted positions, in particular that of the jaguar (hanging to an iron bar with their head down); blows and beatings with diverse objects (bats, electric cables, pieces of wood, garden hoses, braided ropes); electric shocks, especially on the soles of the feet; placing lit cigarettes in the ear canal; sexual assault, such as inserting truncheons, sticks and pieces of wood into the anus; pulling hair and pubic hair, a technique used mainly against suspected Islamists; psychological torture*, particularly with threats of inflicting sexual abuse and rape on mothers and sisters. In some cases, torture sessions occur at night and are accompanied by a type of ceremony where the torturers sing songs.8 The ban on all communications save those with a lawyer which a judge may impose on a defendant for a period of fifteen days,9 renewable once may be considered psychological torture. Prolonged secret detention* without access to family, a lawyer or a doctor allegedly commonly used against presumed or accused Islamists according to their statements and those of their loved ones, also amounts to psychological torture. On 23 May 2011, 13 persons convicted of terrorism and detained in a civil prison in Nouakchott were transferred to an unknown location.10 No information regarding their status or the location of their detention had been provided as of July 2011. Underpaid, poorly trained and ill-equipped, police officers resort to abuse to obtain confessions and establish a suspect's guilt, or to gain information that would lead to the identification of other suspects. These testimonies, obtained under duress, constitute elements of proof in court, even in cases where victims retract statements, contrary to the law.

The perpetrators of torture are members of the National Police, the National Guard and the Gendarmerie. Officers of the Judiciary Police, under the command of the Ministry of Interior and tasked with reporting criminal law offences, gathering evidence and locating those responsible, frequently resort to mistreatment and acts of torture. Other branches of the National Police have also been accused of routinely using torture, mainly the Directorate of Territorial Surveillance and the Directorate of State Security, whose responsibilities include the fight against terrorism. The National Guard, also dependent on the Ministry of Interior, supervises prisoners and is in charge of security in prisons and other government facilities. Its agents can also intervene at the request of regional authorities to restore public order in the event of large-scale riots or unrests. Gendarmerie agents, under the authority of the Minister of National Defense, conduct missions relating to the maintenance of public order and the judicial policing of rural areas.
236
237
Members of the National Guard practice ill-treatment and torture to humiliate and punish prisoners following known or suspected escape attempts, in cases of clashes between inmates, or simply at their whim. When tasked with police functions, they use these methods to crack down on demonstrators.

In cases of alleged human rights violations, the administrative court has jurisdiction to hear individual complaints from civilians, and several ministerial departments and institutions are mandated to investigate the cases. These include the Commissioner for Human Rights, in charge of humanitarian issues and matters regarding civil society, the Ombudsman of the Republic, and the National Human Rights Commission, an independent organization created on 12 July 2006, granted administrative and financial autonomy, and specifically authorized to visit all places of detention without prior notice. In reality, the impunity of State agents suspected of torture is absolute in Mauritania. The successive governments have tolerated, condoned and even encouraged this practice. While they have been ready to admit their predecessors resort to ill-treatment and torture, public authorities have undertaken no significant reform of the functioning of the security forces and have not yet prosecuted any of their agents for such crimes. On 27 September 2009, Al Jazeera television station broadcast images of National Guard agents violently beating a Salafist detainee convicted of terrorism, Khadim Ould Semane, and subjecting him to waterboarding* in a prison in Nouakchott. It also aired an interview of the prisoner, in which he spoke of electric shocks that he and his fellow inmates received. The authorities claimed that this was staged and conducted no investigation. The independence of the judiciary, provided for in the Constitution (Article 89), actually does not withstand the power of the executive branch, charged with the appointment of judges. Poorly trained and underpaid, judges are likely to give in to corruption and social and ethnic pressures. In fact, the judicial apparatus has no say on offences perpetrated by security forces. The courts and investigating judges go so far as to refuse to hear complaints for torture filed by prisoners. And prosecutors do not carry out the legally-mandated regular and systematic monitoring of custody facilities. In general, victims of torture do not plan to seek justice, either because of a lack of trust in the judiciary or for fear of reprisals. The few complaints filed with the authorities have not resulted in any serious investigation and are immediately refuted. For example, in a letter dated 27 April 2009, Mauritania indicated to the United Nations Special Rapporteur* on Torture that the allegations of the attack on Boubacar Ould Messaoud during the unauthorized demonstration on 2 April 2009 were inaccurate. According to the government, the victim was part of a

Mauritania is a party to several regional and international instruments prohibiting the use of torture, notably the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Mauritanian Constitution, in Article 13, condemns all forms of moral or physical violence. The Criminal Code, however, does not provide for any specific punishment for acts of torture committed by State agents when carrying out their duties and only states that: Any official or public servant, administrator, or an agent of, or other person appointed by, the government or the police, or any other person entrusted with the execution of judicial orders or judgments, or any commander in chief or junior officer of the law enforcement authorities who, in the exercise of his duties, or for the purpose of exercising his duties has, without legitimate cause, used or caused to be used violence towards any person, will be punished according to the nature and gravity of such violence [].11 The Code of Criminal Procedure, revised in 2007, also prohibits the use of torture and states, in its first Article, that confessions obtained through torture, violence or force shall be invalid. Under Article 58, All persons deprived of their liberty [] must be treated with respect for human dignity. It is forbidden to subject them to psychological or physical ill-treatment or to hold them in any place other than one provided for by law for that purpose. Furthermore, the Criminal Code, which combines so-called modern law with Islamic law, includes penalties based on Sharia law consisting of ill-treatment or torture, such as the Qisas (law of retaliation, under which the family or clan can demand that the guilty party suffer the same treatment as that which he inflicted on the victim) and the Hudud (punishments set by the Koran which include the death penalty, amputation and flagellation) sometimes decreed but never carried out.
238
group of individuals who were ordered to leave the public road in accordance with the laws intended to preserve public order and had filed no complaint for assault or kidnapping.12
[1] Islamic Republic of Mauritania, Ordonnance No. 2007-036 du 17 avril 2007 portant rvision de lordonnance No. 83-63 du 9 juillet 1983 portant institution dun Code de procdure pnale [Ordinance No. 2007-036 of 17 April 2007 amending ordinance No. 83-63 of 9 July 1983 establishing a Criminal Procedure Code], p. 530-623, Art. 57, http://anac.mr/ANAC/JOf/2007/1143%20fr%20sc.pdf. [2] ACAT-France, Mettre un terme la rpression des manifestations pacifiques [Putting an end to the repression of peaceful demonstrations], letter to the Minister of Justice, Ahmedou Tidjane Bal, 23 April 2009. [3] Amnesty International, Mauritania, Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review, 9th session of the UPR Working Group of the Human Rights Council, November-December 2010, 12 April 2010, 10 pages, p. 5, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ AFR38/001/2010/en/ff26fd86-60d8-4a5c-a38a-c907afae796e/afr380012010en.pdf. [4] Ibidem, p. 5-6. [5] Ordre national des avocats de Mauritanie [National Order of Lawyers of Mauritania], Rapport mensuel du Btonnier sur ltat de la justice [Barrister's Monthly Report on the State of Justice], 13 May 2009, 4 pages, p. 1, http://avocatmauritanie.org/francais/index. php?view=article&catid=12%3Ale-point-sur-la-justice&id=50%3Arapport-du-batonnier-mai-2009&format=pdf&option=com_ content&Itemid=14 and Rapport du Btonnier de lOrdre national des avocats sur la justice [Report of the Barrister of the National Order of Lawyers on Justice] (November 2009), 29 December 2009, 147 pages, p. 34, http://avocatmauritanie.org/francais/index. php?view=article&catid=12%3Ale-point-sur-la-justice&id=74%3Arapport-du-batonnier-nov-2009&format=pdf&option=com_ content&Itemid=14. [6] International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Mauritania: The Case of the Islamists: Torture in the name of the Fight against Terrorism, September 2007, 36 pages, p. 20, http://www.fidh.org/IMG//pdf/Mauritanie479ang.pdf. [7] Amnesty International, Mauritania: Torture at the heart of the State, 3 December 2008, 39 pages, p. 19, http://www.amnesty. org/en/library/asset/AFR38/009/2008/en/da7e84ca-bfa0-11dd-9f1c-69adff6d2171/afr380092008en.pdf. [8] Ibid., p. 12. [9] Criminal Procedure Code, Art. 103. [10] Amnesty International, Mauritania: Thirteen people convicted of terrorism subjected to enforced disappearance, 23 June 2011, 2 pages, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR38/002/2011/en/e779aae6-4450-4554-88a0-2f8e6b780ba1/ afr380022011en.pdf. [11] Islamic Republic of Mauritania, Ordonnance No. 83-162 du 9 juillet 1983 portant institution dun Code Pnal [Ordinance No. 83-162 of 9 July 1983 establishing the Criminal Code], Art. 180, http://www.droit-afrique.com/images/textes/Mauritanie/ Mauritanie%20-%20Code%20penal.pdf. [12] United Nations, Human Rights Council, 13th session, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, Addendum, Summary of information, including individual cases, transmitted to Governments and replies received, A/HRC/13/39/Add.1, 25 February 2010, 417 pages, p. 239, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/ UNDOC/GEN/G10/115/14/PDF/G1011514.pdf?OpenElement.
240
241
NIGERIA
Victims
Each day, some Nigerians are victims of acts of torture and ill-treatment when they are arrested during police checks, held in custody, or imprisoned. The poor are the most vulnerable to abuse, because they cannot bribe police officers, nor can they afford a lawyer or call upon well-connected acquaintances. Any citizen who travels on the country's roads or carries out some visible economic activity may face extortion from police officers. If he refuses to pay the bribe that is demanded, the situation can deteriorate and result in an arbitrary arrest, an illegal detention, or even assault. People suspected of terrorism, radical Islamism, or merely opposition to the government are also exposed to ill-treatment and torture during the waves of repression aimed at demonstrations and protest movements, particularly in those States affected by political tensions related to a combination of community, religious and land issued. In July 2011, police officers and soldiers used excessive force in response to a new bomb attack by fundamentalist Muslim militia Boko Haram (Western Education is a Sin in the Hausa language) committed in their birthplace of Maiduguri, in the state of Borno, in north-eastern Nigeria. During their intervention, members of the security services brutalized and beat the local inhabitants, and allegedly executed 25 people and raped several women.4 Two years earlier, the clashes between these Muslim radicals who target leading Muslim public figures and representatives of the authorities accused of adopting or enforcing a Western lifestyle and the police had resulted in nearly 800 deaths,5 hundreds of arrests, and several cases of torture. In the Niger Delta, which is gripped by widespread insecurity due most specifically to the conflict between the federal army and various armed rebel groups who claim they are struggling for a better redistribution of oil revenues, like the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), human rights violations are commonplace. The supporters and members of these opposition groups are systematically subjected to of abuse, including acts of torture. People forced to leave their homes because of the forced evictions ordered by the federal authorities frequently suffer physical attacks from the security forces who accompany the government's special teams during these operations, especially when they attempt to resist or impede the demolition of their homes. In Abuja, the country's capital, and Port-Harcourt, the capital of Rivers State, the authorities launched the evacuation and destruction of shantytowns as part of their urban improvement or development projects.6
BACKGROUND
The Federal Republic of Nigeria, consisting of 36 States and located in West Africa, is the continent's most heavily populated country, with nearly 159 million inhabitants1 belonging to 389 ethnic groups. Since it became independent in 1960, Nigeria, divided between a mostly Muslim north and a mainly Christian south, has been torn by intra-community, inter-religion, political and social violence on a regular basis, disputes which are related to the control of local power and its economic benefits, as in the Plateau State and in the oil-rich region of the Niger Delta. The root cause of the high rate of criminality which has become apparent over the last few years is the generalized poverty, a result of endemic corruption at all levels of the executive power and the administration.2 The victory of the current Christian Head of State, Goodluck Jonathan, in the presidential election of 16 April 2011 triggered riots and post-electoral violence between different ethnic and religious groups in the north of the country, causing the deaths of 800 people in three days.3
PRACTICE OF TORTURE
The resort to violence is deeply anchored in Nigeria's security forces, which use it systematically and indiscriminately, both in the course of arrests and interrogations and during detention.
242
243
In a country where violence against women remains widespread, public officials routinely engage in rape and other sexual abuse of female detainees and sex workers during night patrols. Such acts of violence are considered merely as fringe benefits of the work.7 Street children, who are estimated to number over a million, and those accused of witchcraft, are often assaulted. In July 2009, police officers questioned some 150 juvenile witches in Iket, in the State of Akwa Ibom, and beat most of them. Members of the civil society (human rights defenders, reporters, unionists and student leaders) are regularly intimidated and harassed by the police. Each year, several among them are subjected to violence, including beatings and other forms of ill-treatment. For example, on 18 August 2009, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arrested and imprisoned, without charging him, Abduliahi Ebiloma, a student who had publicly asked for the removal of the Minister of Education. For seventy-eight days, he was held in secret detention*, beaten, and subjected to electric shocks. In October 2009, he was released without explanation before being expelled from his university.8 In another case, Leo Igwe, representative for West Africa of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), was questioned by police officers on 11 January 2011 in Uyo, in the State of Akwa Ibom, while he was travelling in a car with his driver and a photographer. They were kicked and tied up at the time of their arrest, detained, deprived of water and food for forty-eight hours, given no access to their relatives or to a lawyer. During his interrogation, Leo Igwe was repeatedly beaten violently. This militant is subjected to a constant police harassment campaign because of his fight in favour of children branded witches.9
Acts of torture, particularly beatings, are inflicted in part during the arrests. To humiliate those who are seized, police officers have made a habit to parade them in public places, where passers-by may insult them and throw objects or food at them. The most serious torture sessions take place in the Criminal Investigations Departments (CID) and police stations, which even have an Officer in Charge of Torture (OC) and special dedicated rooms furnished with the necessary equipment. The torture chamber of the police station in the city of Enugu is called The Theatre because of the speed with which suspects confess under the threat of an officer nicknamed Okpontu (Manicurist in Igbo language), known for digging his nails into detainees bodies. If the victim dies while being arrested, the police usually call it the result of gunfire with an armed robber. If he dies while in custody, they speak of an escape attempt. In November 2007, Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Mike Okiro reported that the police had killed 785 armed robbers in one hundred days.10 The other places of torture are the penitentiaries, particularly the Port Harcourt prison, and illegal cells installed in official buildings, particularly military ones, not intended to receive people under arrest.

The security forces resort to torture so regularly that they have named some of their techniques: J5 for the sleep deprivation, consisting in maintaining the victim in a standing or a painful position without moving; suicide for hanging from the ceiling upside down, with a rope tied around the ankles or handcuffs attached to the arms, folded in the back for the chinese handcuff version; third degree for a combination of various physical bindings; German cells for the confinement of several detainees for days or weeks on end in a tiny cell with no light or ventilation, in which inmates have insufficient room to lay down and end up suffocating; VIP treatment for the shots fired into the legs. People suspected of armed robbery are often subjected to this type of cruelty before their interrogation and are then, in most cases, executed and left in public morgues. Burns; finger crushing; extraction of fingernails; waterboarding*; confinement with snakes, spiders, rats, cockroaches or mosquitoes; exposure to tear gas or pepper spray in the eyes or nose or for women the genitals; and death threats are also commonplace. Torture sessions are sometimes held in the presence of other detainees, particularly juveniles, and can last several days. Sometimes prisoners themselves are forced to inflict the ill-treatment and torture. The NPF has greatly increased its personnel since 1999, with an average of 20,000 new recruits per year. Due to a lack of sufficient resources, since a

Many members of the security forces engage in torture and ill-treatment, including the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS), the State Security Service (SSS), the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (CDC), the Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC) and the Nigerian Armed Forces (NAF). The Joint Task Forces (JTF), units consisting of soldiers and police officers created in 2003 to restore order in the Niger Delta and in June 2011 in Maiduguri to fight against Boko Haram, also regularly commit abuse. But the main perpetrators of torture are the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) personnel. This federal organization, placed under the control of the President of the Republic, is the country's largest employer, with 377,000 officers in 2009.
244
245
considerable portion of the budget assigned to the police is funnelled off by internal corruption, this mass recruitment has sacrificed quality for quantity: today, Nigeria's police forces include many unqualified, undertrained and underequipped agents (sometimes even former criminals). Being underpaid, they too are prone to embezzlements. The combination of budgetary restrictions and poor management reduces the police's abilities to conduct investigations based on evidence. In 2007, the NPF had no expert in ballistics or DNA analysis, and its forensic medicine laboratories were dilapidated. Since technical and material means are limited, police officers rarely study crime scenes, and sometimes fail to even go there. Out of the 30,000 it needed, the NPF only had 5,900 vehicles in 2008; it also lacked communication means (portable radios, high-frequency radios, faxes, radio relays). In this context, solving crimes requires police officers to rely on their third sense and on confessions, which are the foundation for over 90% of criminal trials held in the country and are mainly obtained under duress. Torture also serves to humiliate and punish individuals, particularly where political repression is involved. A driver who blocks traffic when a convoy of government vehicles is passing by might be mistreated in public simply to open the road as quickly as possible.

Under federal law, citizens may file oral or written complaints to a superior officer in cases of police brutality. If they are not satisfied with the response, they may send a written complaint to the IGP or the police Public Complaints Bureau (PCB), which is located in the public relations department of each State police command. They can also go to the Human Rights Desk (HRD), located in the buildings of the federal government, or to the police Provost Department at the NPF headquarters.13 Since 2001, there is also a Police Service Commission (PSC), tasked with investigating police abuses. In the event of judicial proceedings, special officers, called Investigating Police Officers (IPO), conduct criminal investigations and prosecutions and refer cases to the Attorney General. The Provost Department can impose disciplinary sanctions.14 The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), established in 1995 to investigate allegations of attacks on human rights and to present non-binding recommendations to the federal authorities, was never allowed to operate independently and effectively because of interference from the executive branch, which oversaw its activities. Twice, in 2006 and 2009, NHRC executive secretary was dismissed for having criticized the government.15 In March 2011, President Goodluck Jonathan enacted a law that theoretically secures the independence and the funding of this institution, and makes its decisions enforceable. In practice, there is no truly effective mechanism for receiving complaints or exercising internal control over the police, and law enforcement agencies commit human rights violations with complete impunity. No information or statistics are available concerning proceedings, whether current or past, taken against torturers, disciplinary sanctions taken against them, or compensation measures granted to their victims. Victims rarely file complaints. Usually, they do not know what legal remedies are available, they fear reprisals, they lack financial means to pay a lawyer's fees, and they have no trust in the judicial system, which is characterised by sluggishness and corruption. Only wealthy people or those who have influence can cause an investigation to be launched and can pay or avoid the taxes, often illegal, demanded of them at each step of the legal proceeding. And when the investigation does reach a conclusion, the author of torture is often simply transferred to another State.

Nigeria has ratified the Convention against Torture and its Optional Protocol, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, which all prohibit torture and ill-treatment. At the domestic level, Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution,11 in its Section 34(1) (a), prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, but does not define these crimes. The Criminal Code does not explicitly criminalize torture. The Penal Code of Sharia, applicable in the mainly Muslim 12 northern States, calls for corporal punishments (beating, flogging, amputations, stoning) which constitute acts of torture. In March 2010, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice formally approved a draft for a National Anti-Torture Policy. However, by August 2011, no progress had been made, and this project was not even mentioned in Nigeria's fourth periodic report on the application of the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, which was released that same month.12
246
[1] World Bank, 2010, http://data.worldbank.org/country/nigeria. [2] According to the Corruption Perceptions Index published by Transparency International on 26 October 2010, Nigeria ranked 134th among the 178 countries studied, http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results. [3] Human Rights Watch (HRW), Nigeria: Post-election Violence killed 800, 17 May 2011, http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/05/16/ nigeria-post-election-violence-killed-800. [4] Amnesty International, Nigeria: Unlawful killings by the Joint Military Task Force in Maiduguri must stop, 14 July 2011, 3 pages, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR44/013/2011/en/42600e41-2533-48c9-b402-8ffcf9604b45/afr440132011en.pdf. [5] Red Cross finds 780 corpses in single Nigeria city, Presstv.ir, 3 August 2009, http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/102384.html. [6] Amnesty International, Nigeria: Hundreds forcibly evicted in Abuja, 29 June 2011, 2 pages, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/ asset/AFR44/012/2011/en/8a653f26-6921-42b5-b8ea-d91a4df5d71e/afr440122011en.pdf; Over 200,000 Nigerians at risk of losing their homes, 28 October 2010, http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/over-200000-nigerians-risk-losing-theirhomes-2010-10-28. [7] Open Society Justice Initiative/Network on Police Reform in Nigeria, Criminal Force: Torture, Abuse, and Extrajudicial Killings by the Nigeria Police Force, May 2010, 132 pages, p. 14, http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/focus/criminal_justice/articles_ publications/publications/nigeria-police-abuse-report-20100519/criminal-force-20100519.pdf. [8] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2010 Human Rights Report: Nigeria, 8 April 2011, 65 pages, p. 11, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160138.pdf. [9] ACAT-France, Garantir la protection physique et psychologique des dfenseurs des droits de lhomme dans ltat dAkwa Ibom [Guaranteeing the physical and psychological integrity of all human-rights defenders in Akwa Ibom State], letter sent to the President of the Republic, Goodluck Jonathan, 27 January 2011. [10] Open Society Justice Initiative/Network on Police Reform in Nigeria, op. cit., p. 24. [11] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, http://www.nigeria-law.org/ ConstitutionOfTheFederalRepublicOfNigeria.htm. [12] Federal Republic of Nigeria, Nigeria's 4th Periodic Report on the implementation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, August 2011, http://www.achpr.org/english/state_reports/Nigeria/4th%20periodic%20report.pdf. [13] United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, MISSION TO NIGERIA (4 to 10 March 2007), A/HRC/7/3/Add.4, 22 November 2007, 47 pages, p. 11, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/149/66/PDF/G0714966.pdf?OpenElement. [14] Ibidem, p. 11-12. [15] ACAT-France, Loi sur la Commission nationale des droits de lhomme [Law on the National Human Rights Commission], letter sent to the Head of State, 31 March 2011.
A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . ANALYSIS OF TORTURE
251
Analysis of Torture
253
SYRIA: ECHOES OF A TORTURE STATE

Since March 2011, Syria has been facing a protest movement which started in the city of Daraa, following the arbitrary arrest and torture of 15 children, aged 10 to 15, punished for having written on the wall of their school the revolutionary slogan previously chanted in Tunisia and Egypt: Ash-shab yurid isqat an-nizam! (The people want to bring down the regime!). The uprising then gradually spread to the entire country, with demonstrators demanding more freedom and the end of the regime of Bashar al-Assad, and has been repressed in blood by the Syrian security forces. By November 2011, over 3,500 demonstrators had died at the hands of snipers or other agents belonging to the various security services and militias loyal to the regime. Some cities have been besieged and bombarded by the army, and the security and intelligence services, both civilian and military, continue to conduct waves of mass arrests of men, women and children, who are systematically being tortured.
254
ANALYSIS OF TORTURE . A WORLD OF TORTURE. ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT
255
His arrest
I was arrested on Saturday, 9 April 2011, on the day following a large demonstration I had covered for Le Monde. Around 3 or 4 in the afternoon, I received a call on my cell phone from a young woman with a strong Iraqi accent; she suggested we meet thirty minutes later, saying she had information for me on a USB key. She spoke quickly and seemed rather reckless. The moment she told me: You are a reporter, when people actively participating in the current revolution or anxious to reveal abuses committed by the police knew they were surely being monitored, I began to worry. I could not pretend otherwise; in any event, I was confined to Damascus and I was going around in circles with the same witnesses, so I was always eager for any information from outside, even though I was always at risk of falling on a Mukhabarat. I agreed to this appointment because I had already met some young inexperienced activists, whose behaviour ranged from stupid to irresponsible, who would gather in bars which were being watched by the intelligence services, with mikes under each table. We met at the Domino coffee shop in Bab Tuma square. She was a beautiful woman, far too well dressed to fit the profile of the militants I had encountered met over my reporting. I soon realized there was a problem. I knew that many Iraqi prostitutes got manipulated by the Mukhabarat. She heaped questions on me, particularly about the media for which I worked and my nationality; I answered with lies. She pretended she was a reporter for a daily opposition information Website. This cover story was well prepared, but nothing else jibed, whether her speech patterns, her make-up or her tone, not unlike that of someone conducting an interrogation. I felt I was getting myself in a trap, but I didnt leave, I needed to see this through to be sure, and I had the impression it was already too late. The conversation was very short. I didnt even have time to finish my coffee. When I told her she didnt know me and that perhaps she shouldnt trust me, she shot back: No, youre the one who should be afraid of me and she got up. I was looking at her as she left, and I saw seven big bruisers coming for me, while the other customers tried to go unnoticed and looked away. Intelligence operatives have the right of life or death over the citizens and enjoy total immunity; these are not people you ask questions to. They got me into a yellow taxicab, tied my hands behind my back with plastic ties, and drove me home. They searched, rampaging through the large house where I rented a room. They were too many of them; they must have seen me as some sort of James Bond. It was nearly flattering. When, still handcuffed, I asked to go to the bathroom, an agent ordered another one to accompany me and watch over me with a weapon pointed on me, because he had seen boxing gloves hanging on a wall. An hour later, two more men came in, allegedly an English-speaking and a French-speaking interpreters, one of whom was also going to serve as a computer engineer and examine my hardware. My first interrogation was muddled, as if they didnt know exactly what they were
23 DAYS IN SYRIAN JAILS

testimony of khaled sid mohand
After a two-and-a-half-year stay in Damascus, independent Algerian reporter Khaled Sid Mohand, 40, who collaborated regularly with the French newspaper Le Monde anonymously and radio station France Culture, was arrested in April 2011. He was then detained for more than three weeks by agents of the Syrian intelligence services, the Mukhabarat. Several months after his release, he recalls the tough interrogations he went through and the conditions in which he was held and offers an interpretation of the current crisis in Syria.
His work as a reporter in Syria

I first travelled to Damascus in 2004, for six months, to learn Arabic. I am Algerian, so I dont need a visa to enter the country. I would never have managed to set foot there if I had applied for press credentials. The Syrian authorities relations with the foreign media remain very shaky. On the other hand, given the regime's paranoid nature, I quickly went to the Ministry of Information to let them know I intended to look into the questions of Iraqi refugees and Syrian hospitality, and I was given carte blanche. I returned there four years later; I was officially working for France Culture and I lectured on journalism at two universities in Lebanon. Between 2008 and the start of the protests in February and March 2011, I was never bothered or summoned by the intelligence services. During this crisis, there were not correspondents from foreign media, apart from a female Syrian the British audiovisual group BBC would call upon. She managed to keep her reporter's visa, but she was recalled for security reasons during my incarceration.
256
257
looking for. I just told them I worked for the Radio-France group and that I was not interested in politics. After two or three hours, they confiscated both of my laptops, a hard drive, all available CDs, DVDs and diskettes, the equivalent of 700 gigabytes of data. They also took the pellet gun I used to scare away the cats that wandered around in the building. An officer noted that this was not a lethal weapon, but the Mukhabarat who would be interrogating me while I was held as a prisoner rejoined: Shooting at Syrian cats is forbidden. I mention this detail because of the rumours that went around afterwards. The neighbours who saw me leave, handcuffed and escorted by an operative with this weapon across the shoulder, must have wondered whether I was one of those foreign snipers who shot at demonstrators, as the Syrian State-run television claimed. In fact, the two teenagers who came up to the vehicle to ask why I was being arrested then insulted me and wanted to hit me. When I was released from jail, I learned that some of the rumours concerning me referred to belonging to an armed group or to some Salafist movement.
His two-day interrogation

The agents shoved me back into the taxicab, put my head between my knees, and took me in an office at Kufar Sousseh, the intelligence services headquarters. I was interrogated as soon as I had arrived, always in a confused way, by officers who looked rather high-ranking. Their questions were often absurd, like: Do you know Osama Bin Laden?, or Have you been received at the White House during your stay in the United States? At first, the ambiance seemed rather relaxed. They had my handcuffs removed, offered me a coffee and a cigarette. As for me, I played the part of the tough guy with nothing to fear, not because I wanted them to believe I was some kind of braggart, but just to show them I had nothing to hide. They must have thought I was a bit too at ease, and they decided to put a little pressure on me. After two hours, a large, very fat guy came into the room, someone who must have been better placed in the hierarchy from the way the others greeted him. He thanked his subordinates for having stayed so late. It must have been around midnight. I didnt have my watch anymore. Then, he turned toward me to warn me, And you, youre going to talk; otherwise, Ill rip your heart out with my hands and Ill cut your testicles off, before slapping me so hard it knocked me off my chair. He left the office and the others began to beat me up using their fists and feet. The officer who, up till then, had seemed considerate started circling me with a sadistic grin, slapping his electric truncheon; he made me kneel down and questioned me regarding my activities and my identity, while hitting my face with such force that he knocked my dental bridge out. All my answers were met with a Liar, punches, and paranoid hypotheses that made me think they thought I was a spy. This was a prospect that had always
terrified me: to be arrested and suspected of a crime of which youre innocent. When youre guilty, you can confess and put an end to torture. If they suspected I was working for a newspaper, all I had to do was confess; I would be tried and I would be sentenced, that's all. But if they were convinced I was cooperating with intelligence services, I would never be able to prove I wasnt. I was also deathly afraid I might reveal the name of the people quoted in my articles. Then, they blindfolded me with a napkin and placed electric wires on my genitals. It was a simulation, using the cables of my own computer. They made me understand that if I really wanted to enjoy electrical discharges, they had all the equipment they needed. That's when I admitted I wrote for Le Monde, under the pseudonym of Dominique Lucas, something they didnt know. They went on hitting me and also threatened to rape me. I dont know how long that lasted, perhaps half an hour. I told myself this was only the beginning, and I was going to end up in pieces. Next, they led me to the building's basement, where I had to remove my clothes and shoes. We were about ten men, all ages, barefooted, and we were given our uniforms, coveralls. I still think of one prisoner who impressed me a lot, an old, very sick Sudanese who could hardly stand up and was far from his home country, just like me. I didnt know what he was doing there, I told myself he was alone and that it was possible to get yourself arrested and then fall into some kind of legal limbo and spend the rest of your life in jail. I dont know if he's still alive. We were lined up in a courtyard, photographed one by one with a slate bearing our names and numbers, then transferred to the various cells; I was assigned cell number 22. An officer told me: From now on, your name isnt Khaled anymore, it's 22. I found myself in a small cell, some 2 m2, with no daylight, nothing to read, no pen to write with, no television or radio. I placed two of the three blankets on the ground to serve as a mattress, then I covered myself with the third and I dont know how I fell asleep. Shortly afterwards, I heard the first screams of a torturer, I could clearly distinguish insults and the word Who?, but I knew that the purpose of these sessions was not so much to extract information as it was to punish, to humiliate and to terrorize. I heard the tortured prisoner's screams and I felt my heart rate speed up; I was paralysed with fear. An hour later, a man opened my cell's very heavy steel door with a deafening clamour, threw me a piece of cloth to cover my eyes with, and dragged me to the room where the loud voices came from. Once my blindfold had been removed, I fearfully expected to see a torture room replete with sundry sophisticated instruments, but all there was were two cables and a high examination table. I was greeted by the Mukhabarat who had escorted me with the pump-action gun. He immediately started beating me and threatening me. Then, he took a cable and hit my hand; he was a bit shorter than I and visibly tired, so he made me kneel to beat me up more comfortably. He asked me: Tell me; I answered: What?; he told me: Everything. Everything from the beginning. I was quite pleased with this question; I had just turned 40, I told myself I was going to save time by telling him my 37 long,
258
259
full years of existence before coming to Syria, and I launched myself into the story, from my birth in a village in Kabylie. My interrogator fell asleep. When he got up, he hit the table with the cable, as much to frighten me as to wake up; he rose from his chair, circled the desk that stood between us, struck me with the cable and slapped me across the face. He then lit a cigarette and listened again for and hour and a half. I hadnt yet reached the year 1985; I couldnt understand what it he wanted, especially as he took no notes. The second interrogation took place the following day. He let me know I would no longer suffer any beating, and asked me a few more questions. And there you have it; those were the only physical cruelties I was subjected to: a few slaps, punches and kicks, a cable blow on the shoulder, threats of being confined until my hair turned white and of being submerged in ice-cold water. To me, this was not torture, these were kisses compared to what other prisoners, including very young teenagers, were subjected to. Each day, and sometimes each night, I heard people being tortured, I heard their screams rising constantly, in a steady crescendo, until grown men were turned into little girls. As I couldnt see anything, I had increased my auditory sense; for example, I could tell who walked the corridors by the noise of their steps, whether the barefooted prisoners, the rubber soles of convicts assigned to distributing the meals or opening of the bathroom door, or the bootwearing Mukhabarat. Through the blows I could hear distinctly, I even managed to guess the stoutness of the bodies being beaten, whether bony or fat, whether muscled or frail. There was one night when they worked Number 32 over; they tortured him, put him back in his cell, then went back for him and tortured him again. He was a rather strong man, whose screams of pain, more stifled, differed from the others. They didnt rough him up; they subjected him to different cruelties. I supposed he had been raped, sodomized with a blunt object or truncheon, or submerged in ice-cold water.
often wrong. They werent allowed to speak to us, else they would be pummelled. I could also share some words with Ali, the young detainee whose cell was next to mine. After fourteen days, I was convinced I would eventually get out. At the end of fifteen days, I realised I had in fact been there eighteen days, and I broke down. I felt as if they had stolen three days from me, and I began to lose hope. After all, I was a reporter, I was supposed to report on what I saw and heard. If they had been stupid enough to jail me, surely they werent about to take the risk of allowing me to testify by releasing me, they would just kill me. That's when I decided to go on a hunger strike to get a visit from a lawyer. They forced me to eat in return for legal aid. That same day, an inmate didnt touch the contents of his plastic plate. The Mukhabarat, who always made sure the prisoners finished their meal, took the boy from his cell to learn what happened. It had nothing to do with a hunger strike. As he had been viciously tortured, he had stomach cramps and couldnt swallow anything. But he got himself beaten up again; he was whipped until he had no breath left to scream. Obviously, that frightened me. I told myself if I had to stage another hunger strike, it was not in my interest to have it be known at once, so I hid food in the drop ceiling and waited until I had visibly weakened before declaring I had gone on strike. When the Mukhabarat asked me why I had not eaten, I said something that ended up making me laugh: Im depressed, an expression Ali had once used, an expression that was really out of place in a similar context. The news didnt bother the officer, who probably already knew I would be released the following day and didnt call a doctor. There was one who came by each morning and evening, not to take care of the injuries resulting from the torture, but to see to pre-existing health problems or to the digestive problems related to the food in the jail.
The reasons for his detention

I still cant explain what happened, I dont even know which intelligence service arrested and held me. Some have said it was the political police, others that it was the counter-espionage service. I cant understand how I got arrested, why I was jailed, why I was held for so long, why I was released, why I wasnt tried, expelled, or slapped with a local banishment order On the other hand, I am sure it was the Algerian authorities who got me out of a tight spot by exerting considerable pressure on the Mukhabarat, considering the haste with which they drove me to the embassy and the obsequiousness with which they treated the diplomats of my country. I have no idea whatsoever what would have happened otherwise.
His daily routine in jail

At first, I tried to keep track of time, based on the breakfasts some olives and a slice of cheese which were served at the same time each day, but I lost count after fifteen days. Also, I expected Id spend no more than three days in jail, as did most reporters when theyre arrested. After those first seventy-two hours, I told myself I had to leave as soon as possible. It was like a race against the clock. The Mukhabarat knew my pseudonym and were going to try to identify my sources. People caught during manifestations remained no more than ten days, due to a lack of space. I had no contact with the other prisoners, but I tried to communicate with those in charge of delivering the meals, and especially to ask them the date. We only had two or three seconds in which we could swap, through winks, information which was
260
261
His stance on the situation in Syria

When I went to Syria in 2008, I got the same impression that in 2004. I never noticed the power of the Mukhabarat, I even felt there was free speech. People discussed and debated; with a freedom of expression they restricted to their private lives, true, but still, they were neither kidnapped nor executed for their political opinions. I know a lot of observers disagree with me, but I think some of them are rewriting history in light of current events. In my opinion, fear was restricted to the circles of human rights defenders. Back in the days of Hafez al-Assad,1 if you dreamt of insulting the President, you woke up trembling at the fear that you might have spoken in your sleep. Between 2008 and the uprising, I had political conversations in every kind of setting, coffee shops, restaurants, parties where you didnt know the identity of all the guests, where you knew that some of them collaborated with the intelligence services. Police omnipresence was quite real. My friends who taught Arabic to foreigners were very clearly under the control of the Mukhabarat and had to report, once a week or month, if they wanted to be allowed to continue to teach, in exchange for information on their students; nothing malicious to my knowledge. Intelligence agents maintained constant yet friendly pressure, questioning people around a cup of coffee, not by slapping them around as occurred a decade ago. Bashar al-Assad was very popular and, rightly or wrongly, was not associated with the regime as such, which was marked by corruption, the pressure of the services and security forces, and the limitations placed on fundamental liberties. Syrians believed, as I did at one time, that there were internal power struggles between those in power, between a reactionary old guard and the Head of State and his advisers. Even among those opponents I met, many were those who believed in Bashar al-Assad's determination to change things for the better. This was not the case for Presidents Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen or Zine el Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, that had no longer any margin of manoeuvre, disgraced presidents who were despised by the majority of the population, or in any event by a large enough number of people ready to die to drive them out of power. That's why, when the Head of State gave a speech on 30 March, for the first time since the beginning of the insurrection and his murderous repression, it came as such a dramatic cold shower. At first, Syrians, even the most radical of them, even those who had been jailed, were only asking for reforms and not for the regime's overthrow. They, and particular members of minorities, were terrified by the prospect of falling into civil and interfaith war as did Lebanon and Iraq. That's why it would seem that a large number of Syria's Christians support the current authorities. People told themselves that the popular revolt finally gave Bashar al-Assad the chance to break the intelligence services and security forces, and to follow the policies he had promised. It was an obvious scenario for many citizens, and that's what's specific
about the Syrian case. After his speech of 30 March, despite the disappointment, there were still people who refused to admit that the President was really the author of the text. The information I received, which came from rather highly placed sources within French diplomatic circles, mentioned the existence of two speeches, one version which was rather conciliatory and another which was absolutely not. At the last minute, the Head of State had apparently been forced to read the latter version. Since then, the demonstrators slogan has changed: they are now demanding his dismissal, or even his execution.
His opinion on the repression

The outbursts of police violence and brutality shocked a lot of people, and I most of all. At first, I was told that a few teenagers had been arrested and beaten up for having painted a few graffiti on walls in the city of Daraa. Then, I learned that the oldest of them was only 15 and that they had been inexcusably tortured. I confess I was personally terrified; I wondered what men capable of doing this to children would have in store for me, because I was certain I would get arrested. I couldnt walk between the raindrops. This crisis has been handled stupidly, beyond any moral consideration. From the moment the first abuses occurred, it would have been enough just to fire the head of the Mukhabarat who was responsible for the cruelties inflicted on these young boys to soothe their families and the inhabitants of Daraa. This was done: he was sent to jail, but he was restored to his office right after that, without any subtlety, which fed the Syrians anger. Then, during the first demonstrations, the police shot unarmed people with automatic weapons; they also fired during funeral ceremonies. It's as if they did everything they could to provoke a popular uprising. I came with two hypotheses that might explain this situation. On the one hand, from the very onset of these events, the President, his advisers and the Members of Parliament the civilian authorities, in short were sidelined by the security forces and the Mukhabarat, who decided this was a public safety issue and it therefore was their responsibility to deal with it, to carry out the repression. Of course, that would not absolve the Head of State of blame. On the other hand, and according to my information on how the clan in power works, in the event of a crisis, the decisions are taken consensually by the Alawi family.2 Therefore, it is no longer Bashar al-Assad who holds power, but rather his family: his mother; his brother Maher, who heads the Republican Guard and the army's 4th Division and is rumoured to be a bloodthirsty psychopath; his sister; and his brother-in-law, Assef Shawkat, the head of all intelligence services, who rivals the military in cruelty. So the question became one of defending the family's interests, just like in a mafia. That's the most obvious analogy. Indeed, Bashar al-Assad's ascension resembles that of Michael Corleone, the hero
262
263
of the Godfather trilogy. He was an ophthalmology student in London, fascinated by his studies and his girlfriend, a studious young man, gangly and somewhat shy, who did not want to be in the spotlight and showed no interest for politics or the army. The one who was meant to succeed the father was his brother, Bassel, who died in 1994. When Bashar al-Assad came to power in 2000, he showed himself willing to liberalize the economy and politics. He wanted to legalize the family's business, but failed to put his country on the path to democracy, and acquired a taste for power, like Michael Corleone. The reforms he was considering bothered all the parasites, i.e. the members of the intelligence services and security forces who mesh the whole Syrian society and control the country's entire economic machinery.
TORTURE IN SYRIA: A GOVERNMENTAL POLICY

interview with radwan ziadeh , Syrian opposition member exiled to the United
States, and founder of the Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies1
The courage of the demonstrators

As I see it, this is really a matter of psychological and physical constitution. When I was out of my cell, I stood for an hour in a corridor, and I took advantage of this newly recovered field of view to observe my surroundings carefully, particularly the prisoners who left a collective dungeon to go to the bathroom. Among them were broken men, heads and bodies bent, a terrified look in their eyes, and others, eyes filled with anger and determination. These would go back into the streets, to continue the fight and build their country's history.
Testimony collected by Jean-tienne de Linares and Olivia Moulin on 7 October 2011.
Is the recourse to torture part of a deliberate strategy by the Syrian regime? Yes, torture is in fact an instrument used by the authorities to spread fear among the population, as the ongoing violence committed against demonstrators and the cases of kidnapping and torture of activists and their relatives prove. In some cases, the security forces torture people to death, before delivering their bodies bearing the signs of torture to their families. Such was the case of the young militant Ghiath Matar. Torture in Syria can also be used to extract information and denunciations against other demonstrators. Actually, the Syrian regime is waging a war against its own people, which is demanding freedom and dignity. Which categories of the population are mostly targeted? Actually, the entire population is victim of the repression. There are more than 183 juveniles and 150 women, also men and disabled people, who have been killed by the security forces since the start of the uprising in March 2011. For example, Hamza alKhatib, 13, disappeared on 29 April 2011. He was from the southern village of Jiza in the Daraa country's province, where the protest movement began after the security forces arrested high school students who had simply scrawled anti-regime graffiti on a wall. Hamza was arrested during a demonstration and not seen again until his mutilated body, with the penis cut off, was handed to his family weeks later. He has become a symbol of the revolt against Bashar al-Assad. Likewise, Doctor Sakher Hallak, who was an eminent physician in Aleppo and did not participate in any antigovernment protests or meetings, was tortured and mutilated. The Syrian security forces arrested him on Wednesday, 25 May 2011. On Friday, they interviewed his wife and daughter and told them that everything would be all right and that Sakher would be released the following Saturday. On that day, his wife was told that he should be
[1] Hafez al-Assad, the father of Bashar al-Assad, assumed power after a coup in 1970, and kept it until his death, in June 2000. [2] The Assad family belongs to the Alawi minority, Shiite Muslims who represent approximately 10% of Syria's population.
264
265
on his way home, but he had to stop at the courthouse to sign some documents. That Saturday evening, the police called his family to inform them that they have a body in the morgue that might belong to Sakher. Indeed, it was him. There was evidence of multiple injuries, consistent with torture, and direct trauma to the head. His eyes and his penis were mutilated. All the bones in his body were broken, and marks from four different types of boots were imprinted on his body. He died by strangulation. There was rope mark on his fingers, suggesting that he tried to remove the bounds off his neck. In the morgue, the security forces told his loved ones that they never held the doctor in their custody, but, that, instead, they found him dead on the street. And then they refused to release the body for burial until the family accepted that story, a version of the facts they published in the daily newspaper, quoting them. Afterwards, they wrapped the body with gauze, like a mummy, ensuring that only his face, with his eyes closed, and his feet were visible, to prevent any incriminating photos. The relatives were not allowed to remain alone with his body. The security forces also prevented people from attending the funeral. They used their own car to transport the body and made sure that no photos were taken, until he was buried. Has the use of torture changed since the uprising? The torture* (CAT) was used in Syria long before this, according to the UN Committee against Torture which reviewed the Syrian report on torture for the first time in May 2010. It declared that torture in Syria was a daily practice among the security forces branches, and noted numerous, ongoing, and consistent allegations concerning the routine use of torture by law enforcement and investigative officials, at their instigation or with their consent, in particular, in detention facilities. This was the daily fare of the Syrians for almost forty-seven years, but lately the torture has increased dramatically, and the atrocities inflicted against the people are far more widespread, such as cutting off arms, sectioning genitals, pulling nails of children, using electrical shocks. They are many such methods, to send the whole population the following message: We have no tolerance for anyone who joins the protest movement. Are these types of disgusting methods something new in Syria? They were already used before the uprising, but only in isolated cases. Now, they are used systematically and by all the security branches. To give you just one example of how law enforcement agents treat the people in Syria, there are now unfortunately over 18 documented cases of rapes against women in the city of Homs. We had never heard of such practices before the demonstrations. This technique of torture is used mainly in Homs, because this is now the focus of the uprising. But we will maybe hear reports of similar cases in other cities in the future.
What is the purpose of raping women? It aims at humiliating them and, above all, inciting the activists and the victims relatives who are active in the protest to surrender to the authorities. It also serves to aggravate the situation by encouraging demonstrators to take up arms to defend themselves. Then, the security forces can claim that they are no more facing a peaceful protest, but an armed one, and that they must protect the rule of law and preserve the security. I dont think this approach was successful, because it has actually given people more courage and greater faith in the idea they have to continue the struggle until the regime falls down. But they are beginning to take up arms, arent they? Yes, some people do so to defend themselves and their family. This, of course, is legitimate, because of the murders, rapes and shootings at children. Are the forces responsible for acts of torture still the same as those who committed them before the uprising? Bashar al-Assad's regime has always relied on the same groups of individuals who use the same methods. All the security officers actually enjoy immunity under the Syrian law. There is no accountability. And as the Security Council of the United Nations has not taken action to refer the crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court*, their authors enjoy immunity both at the national level and at the international level. Do you think the regime wants to conceal its massive recourse to torture or, on the contrary, does it want everyone to know? It wants to disclose the cases of torture in order to warn the citizens. This is why agents of the security forces call the families to get them come to the hospital and see the bodies or return corpses to them, which bear marks of torture inflicted during the time of detention. But in some cases, such as that of Sakher Hallak, the police try to hide their responsibility in the torture and in the death of the victim. They dont hide it anymore, even if they dont admit it officially, but for example they let the family of Ghiath Matar know that they killed him, and when they arrest activists in the same area or in the same city, they tell them that their sons, daughters would be returned in the same condition, to spread the fear. How do you explain the fact that, despite the torture, Syrians continue to demonstrate? They do believe that if they stop, they will have to face more massacres and crimes against humanity. Demonstrating is the only way they know to put an end to these practices, to force Bashar al-Assad to step down and start transition until democracy.
266
267
Do you consider that the political and social context of the current uprising is different from the one that presided over the 1982 Hama massacre? Yes, it is very different. In Hama, the police used weapons from the first day. Besides, today, the demonstrations are not concentrated in a single city, theyve spread throughout the country, in Homs, in Deir ez-Zor, in Damascus, in Hama, in Daraa. Finally, the reaction of the international community is not the same either, because the current uprising in Syria occurs after the Tunisian, Egyptian and Libyan revolutions, in a different regional context. These are the reasons why nobody believes the official line according to which demonstrators are armed and Islamists, and all other similar lies broadcast by the Syrian media. Social networks are playing a very important role to document all the crimes committed by the regime, which doesnt allow foreign reporters to enter its territory and to monitor what's going on. In Tunisia and Egypt, there were numerous defections within the army. How do you explain that in Syria, few superior officers and members of the security apparatus have joined the revolt? In both of these countries, the army is a professional one, not a militia serving the Head of State. For example, in Tunisia the soldiers refused to open fire on demonstrators and forced the President to resign, whereas in Syria, they go after the people. If Bashar al-Assad's regime falls and is replaced by a democratic one, what is the strategy to follow to establish the truth on the abuses and to bring justice to the victims of the repression? Do you recommend resorting to the international criminal justice or to a national transitional justice mechanism? Bashar al-Assad should be referred to the International Criminal Court to answer for all his crimes. That is very important for Syrians. At the same time, after the president's fall, we must set up a national Truth and Reconciliation Commission*, i.e. a transitional justice mechanism like those created in Latin American countries and in Morocco. This process is necessary to put an end to revenge and break the cycle of violence.
Interview conducted by Hlne Legeay on 3 October 2011.
THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF TORTURE: DEFENDING A MORAL IMPERATIVE

sandra lehalle , professor of Criminology at the Faculty of Social Sciences,
University of Ottawa (Canada)
[1] Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies (DCHRS), http://www.dchrs.org/english/news.php?aboutus.
It has now been over sixty years since the United Nations voted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,1 the preamble of which decries the disregard and contempt for human rights [that] have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind. Marked by the postwar environment, the authors of this text were not content with creating a flowery speech; they were determined to strengthen the rights it affirmed. While it is true this declaration's goal was to be a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations,2 it sought to go beyond this status and to ensure that the States guarantee human rights by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance.3 Thus, the ideal must go hand in hand with concrete practice and compliance, particularly through setting up a legal framework, a normative foundation. The preamble states, in any event, that it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.4 The rule of law has been set up as the essential barrier against violations of fundamental human rights. Among these rights, the Declaration of 1948 formalises, in its Article 5, the general and absolute prohibition against torture: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, echoed in numerous texts, such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, and most particularly the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984. The condemnation of torture is definitely a major achievement, one which tolerates no exception according to the various relevant international instruments.
268
269
A necessary reminder of the foundations of the prohibition against torture

Is it necessary to go over the reasons why torture is one of the worst attacks on human rights and must therefore remain absolutely forbidden? Unfortunately, yes! We are quite far from the turmoil which, in the wake of World War II, resulted in an international consensus on the issue. As witnesses of this period are disappearing, context and mentalities are changing, the arguments put forth to justify this condemnation are somewhat forgotten. Perhaps it is because the normative prohibition against torture is absolute and universal in nature that one very rarely mentions its justifications and that it appears not to need any advocacy. It would seem that explaining the obvious reasons for it is useless, superfluous, if not frankly improper.5 Yet, the reality of ill-treatment inflicted to prisoners, to which this report among others bears witness, underlines the interest to be found in updating and reaffirming the foundations of the ban on the practice of torture. The prohibition rests mainly on arguments of an ethical nature that refer to a person's inviolability, physical and moral integrity, individual autonomy, humanity, and most especially dignity.6 Human dignity, above all else, lies at the heart of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.7 This principle, which serves to legitimize8 and reinforce the common and consensual conception of the stated human rights, is also a powerful reminder that human beings exist as individuals,9 not merely as members of a community. Because of the moral equality of human beings, each must be treated with dignity precisely because he is human. The ban on torture, like many modern human rights, is rooted solidly in the respect of people's dignity. However, this is a difficult notion to demarcate, to define, to circumscribe,10 even to demonstrate empirically; yet this difficulty must not take away from its importance. By basing the prohibition against torture on human dignity, one clearly places the issue on the level of moral convictions. This can be no surprise, because human rights are very often founded on such convictions. Despite its secular character, the 1948 Declaration resorts to a vocabulary which is distinctively evocative of the beliefs that form its basis: the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want [] the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights .11 Thus, whether in international proceedings or informal discussions, defending the ban on torture essentially means taking a stand on the basis of the fundamental beliefs of each one of us. The religious and philosophical principles are two non-exclusive examples of possible alternatives to forge a moral commitment against torture.
Human dignity rooted in religious principles

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, dignity bears witness to Man's exceptional status within divine creation.12 Created by God the transcendent authority in His image (Genesis I:26), human beings are sacred and must therefore be treated with dignity by their fellow beings. Psalm 8 indicates that God confers unequalled dignity to humans because He wants them as His vis--vis. Dignity may also be linked to Christ's incarnation, since every person becomes Christ's face (Matthew 25:31-46), or to Christ's sacrifice, whose spilt blood grants each person inviolable value. Therefore, no one may set himself up as judge and supreme master of the life and dignity of another human being, regardless of the latter's behaviour. Even though the Bible contains no command prohibiting torture, all Christian values oppose the act of degrading a person, assaulting him and taking away his humanity, no matter what possible usefulness such practices might have for the rest of the community. The prohibition against torture goes beyond the framework of a normative prohibition; it lies in the refusal to assume a divine role.13
Human dignity rooted in philosophical principles

In the philosophical tradition of the Enlightenment, dignity comes from the fact that all human beings are naturally gifted with reason and aspire to what is good. These philosophers therefore identify a foundation for morality which does not resort to a transcendent authority. There remains to be seen just what the good is and to reconcile its various possible concepts. In the mind of Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804),14 this poses no major problem, since morals are not so much conceptual as truly practical, insofar as they allow one to act. Human beings, whose hearts know moral truth, must behave by projecting the consequences of their actions in such a fashion as to set them up as universal law. By inviting us to ponder the question What if everybody did that?, the German philosopher sends us back precisely to that universalist aspiration that animates morals, liberty and, in the end, all human rights. Human beings, endowed with the same nature, have the same moral values, which must be defended by universal rights. Emmanuel Kant also states: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.15 If we accept that no one can be used as a means and that no need may justify an injustice,16 we must categorically condemn torture. Dignity legitimizes human rights by providing them with an intellectual fuel, impregnated with faith and reason, that sacralises Man as an end. Whether as a value or an ideal, it relies on moral quality that justifies the absolute and universal character of the prohibition against torture. On this level, the practice of torture is an intrinsically bad action, regardless of any foreseeable repercussions of its condemnation.17
270
271
The challenge of facing all relativistic temptations: rejection of the ticking bomb scenario
We are forced to admit that torture still gives rise to permissive, populist and/or alarmist arguments, and to very real practices. As part of the war on terrorism, we have all had the opportunity to hear, in public and political arenas, various more or less explicit questionings of the absolute nature of its prohibition, and calls for some flexibility or even relativism. Torture has been presented as a viable perhaps even a desirable option under certain circumstances.
The illusion of a hypothetical disaster scenario

Few may be those who wish to generalize the practice of torture, but many sometimes advocate evaluating its exceptional usefulness in extraordinary cases, waiving the moral principles that form the very foundation of the prohibition against torture because of the imminence and gravity of a potential danger. To convince us, we are then presented with a hypothetical situation of the ticking bomb type. This scenario considers the dilemma facing the authorities who arrest a terrorist involved in a serious and imminent bomb attack. They are convinced that the risk is impending, that the potential danger is cause for great concern, and that the prisoner has the information needed to avoid the explosion. This scenario suggests that only torture would permit saving the lives at stake, and that it would therefore be justified and legitimized by its future effects. It would even prove the best alternative for a State that looks after the security and happiness of society.18
author has documented numerous cases where either the authorities lacked sufficient elements to know whether or not the person being held was a terrorist and/or an attack was imminent, or people were tortured when, in the end, their involvement and the perceived danger were not real. Alfred McCoy also insists on the fact that few individuals have good information, and those who do are precisely the least likely to talk, even under duress. In short, he believes no documented case meeting all the criteria of the ticking bomb scenario exists. And if such a case had existed (or were eventually to exist), it most presumably would have been (or would be) documented and made public to demonstrate the alleged effectiveness of torture. In short, not only is it impossible to demonstrate irrefutably the usefulness of torture under certain circumstances, yet it is easy to recall that, under the pretext of exceptional situations, torture is almost always committed outside of this famous scenario.
A distortion of the human rights argument

In placing ourselves before the fictional dilemma of having to choose between the dignity of an individual perceived as the bearer of a threat and the security of potential victims, the situation scenario insinuates one should maximize the collective good by sacrificing the individual good, such as a person's liberty, equality, or right to fairness. In the end, the issue would then be, when facing the possible consequences, to forget that the individual is the social unit that enjoys inalienable rights. However, a strong ethical and moral position against torture consists in resisting the temptation of evaluating the consequences and, most especially, of questioning the respective importance assigned to each principle, value or individual. The prohibition is universal and absolute precisely so that it needs never be confronted to other competing principles or interests. As the US philosopher Ronald Dworkin put it,21 a right is an interest that cannot be set aside by any appeal to the common good. The ticking bomb scenario is a very dangerous one, because it calls on us to contextualise an individual's fundamental right to suit the social and political reality of the moment. In the current context, as at every other time torture has been practiced, the rights of good individuals are often opposed to those of bad ones, those of innocents victims to those of enemies (friend and enemy are not metaphors or symbols, but actually concepts that must be understood in a concrete and existential sense),22 and one implicitly justifies torture from an identity-driven distinction. Such reasoning bears within it the seeds of countless abuses, and mankind's history is replete with cases where the protection of the dominant social groups interests served as a justification for the injustices and ill-treatment committed against potential enemies (political, religious, ethnic or other minorities). The universality of human rights supposes the protection of values shared by equal individuals. That is one of
Deconstructing the scenario

This stage-setting obviously plays on the emotional reactions caused by the notion that thousands of innocent victims might be saved by using just a bit of torture on an evildoer. However, emotions must never overcome the capacity for thought and assessment regarding the veracity and implications of this scenario, which include a number of grey areas. Is the risk really imminent, so much so that it leaves no room for any other strategy? At what degree of gravity would the danger justify torture? At what minimum number of potential victims may it be considered? Are we truly certain that the prisoner is involved? If so, does he really have the information needed to foil the attempt? Will torture permit effectively getting this information out of him? Will the data obtained be reliable and useful enough to act upon them? And so on19 It then becomes highly unlikely and unrealistic that a situation will ever arise in which all these elements are present. Indeed, and according to an in-depth analysis by US history professor Alfred McCoy,20 this has never been the case. In fact, this
272
273
the reasons why the United Nations Convention against Torture unequivocally excludes the use of such reasoning in its Article 2: No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
[1] United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Preamble, 10 December 1948, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ index.shtml. [2] Idem. [3] Id. [4] Id. [5] SULLIVAN, Andrew. The Abolition of Torture, in LEVINSON, Sanford. Torture: A collection, New York, Oxford University Press, 2004, 319 pages, p. 317. [6] GROSS, Oren. The Prohibition on Torture and the Limits of the Law. Op. cit., p. 229. [7] United Nations, op. cit. [8] KLAUS, Dick. The Founding Function of Human Dignity in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in KRETZMER, David and KLEIN, Eckart. The Concept of Human Dignity in Human Rights Discourse, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2002, 324 pages, p. 111-120. [9] REGNIER, Daniel. Human Rights and the Moral Imagination: Some Ancient Philosophical Contributions, Science et Esprit, Vol. 62, Fascicules 2-3, 2010. [10] N. BABISSAGANA, Emmanuel. Linterdit de la torture en procs ? [The prohibition against torture on trial?], Brussels, Facults universitaires Saint-Louis, 2006, 260 pages. [11] United Nations, op. cit. [12] GUSHEE, David P. Against Torture: an Evangelical Perspective. Theology Today, Vol. 63, No. 3, 2006, p. 349-364. [13] WALDRON, Jeremy. What Can Christian Thinking Add to the Debate about Torture?, op. cit., p. 336. [14] KANT, Emmanuel. Les fondements de la mtaphysique des murs [Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals], Paris, Delagrave, 1978, p. 150. [15] Id. [16] KANT, Emmanuel. La mtaphysique des murs et le conflit des facults [Metaphysic of Morals and The Contest of Faculties], Paris, Gallimard, 1986, p. 485. [17] PARRY, John T. Escalation and Necessity: Defining Torture at Home and Abroad, Torture: A collection, p. 145. [18] Under various guises, proponents argue that torture is sometimes unavoidable, a necessary evil, a responsible decision in order to fight Evil. The decision then becomes a difficult one, linked to the responsibility and the need to get one's hands dirty, which would be the purview of political leaders and shapers. [19] Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT), Defusing the Ticking Bomb Scenario. Why we must say No to torture, always, 2007, 29 pages, http://www.fiacat.org/IMG/pdf/TBS-finalweb.pdf. [20] McCOY, Alfred W. A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror, New York, Metropolitan Books, 2006, 304 pages, p. 192-195. [21] DWORKIN, Ronald M. Taking Rights Seriously, London, Duckworth, 1978, 371 pages, p. 92. [22] SCHMITT, Carl. The Concept of the Political, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 2007, 162 pages. [23] FREEMAN, Michael. The Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1994, p. 491. [24] United Nations, Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 18 December 2002, 11 pages, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/pdf/cat-one.pdf.
Conclusion
It is deplorable that one should still need to argue against torture, which is prohibited under international law. This is precisely one of those human rights deemed absolute, inalienable and non-derogable, to put a stop to relativistic arguments, utilitarian calculations, and possible violations justified by circumstances or the appeal to an alleged common good. The debate that torture once again raises in the dawn of the 21st Century presents a complex combination of stakes which are both practical and urgent while also both theoretical and abstract.23 In an ideal world, these two aspects should be approached concomitantly; but in the real world, the immediacy and reality of human rights violations often banish theory and arguments to the backburner of priorities for militants, who indeed can intervene without any concern about defending the very foundation of their cause. The recent encroachments on the prohibition against torture, whether rhetorical or practical, seem to demonstrate yet again the need to unite and strengthen both reflection and action at the same time. On the argumentative level, we must counter the simplistic justifications in favour of torture and reaffirm the moral principles that constitute the foundation for the current prohibition. On a normative level, we should bolster the legal support for the prohibition by giving it a compulsory effect, and by reinforcing its control, particularly through the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture,24 which calls for a system of visits of detention sites by independent bodies, both nationally and internationally. The two lines of attack are inseparable: both the social actors and the States must commit to promoting and strengthening, in theory and in practice, the absolute condemnation of torture.
275
277
TORTURE AS A MEANS OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

juan e. mndez , United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
and Degrading Treatment1
Prohibition against torture

Because torture defined under the Convention against Torture encompasses certain types of ill-treatment when carried out by public officials, instances of torture frequently arise in the context of criminal investigations. Specifically, criminal investigations are often aimed at obtaining information or confessions, and although this is not their principal purpose, they may involve punishment for acts that an individual is suspected of having committed. While it is completely within the province of States, and indeed their responsibility, to effectively investigate allegations of criminal behavior, investigations need to comport with human rights obligations; in particular, respect for the absolute prohibition of the use of torture. Consequently, States must respect this commitment by ensuring that allegations of torture are effectively and promptly investigated. It is a sad reality that torture is still used as a tool for investigation in many countries. Aside from the inherent difficulties of self-policing, States provide many explanations for the difficulties they encounter in attempting to satisfy this obligation.2 At one level, they cite their legitimate national interests in combating criminality and eradicating terrorist threats as a justification for exceptional investigation techniques. Additionally, States point to issues of evidence in their investigations into allegations of torture, noting that the often non-physical marks of abuse make it difficult to prove that torture occurred. Some States call attention to problems of
278
279
access to technology, such as forensics tools, which can assist with detection, highlighting that many poor countries cannot afford these equipments. While many of these explanations hold a level of validity, they overlook the fact that fulfilling the States obligations to prohibit torture has many dimensions. A better understanding of the enabling conditions of torture, the role of accountability, the available alternatives to torture, and the role of the Special Rapporteur may promote the full realization of the prohibition against torture and help States improve their ability to conduct effective investigations without resorting to violence.
Enabling conditions
There are a number of factors that affect the decision of an individual officer as to whether or not use torture. These include the culture and environment in the law enforcement agency within which they operate; the lack of an effective legal or regulatory framework for torture prevention; the general norms of treatment of persons held in custody or detention; and the consequences of the practice of torture. In the course of the work of the Special Rapporteur, the mandate has noted that in the absence of strong preventative and protective mechanisms, torture most frequently takes place in the first few hours and days when a person is imprisoned. Similarly, convicted criminals and even suspects in long-term imprisonment, as well as other marginalized groups that come into contact with the law, are at heightened risk of torture. The personal situation of the victim, particularly when torture occurs in the context of detention, often results in an under-reporting of torture as victims fear reprisal and have less access to complaint procedures. State law and policy must ensure the protection of rights for persons deprived of their liberty, whether by detention or by arrest. Additionally, there must be mechanisms to guarantee that police officers and other ground-level officials respect these rights. In this connection, adherence in practice to the minimum standards enumerated in various international, regional and national instruments are important precursors to make sure that torture is not seen or used as a means for criminal investigations. In some States, cultures within certain law enforcement units are characterized by violence and aggression, which may enable acts of torture. A department where it is standard practice to resort to physical force as a form of punishment may be more likely to see instances of torture being used as part of an investigation. Because the violent conduct is acceptable in one context, it is not immediately reprehensible in
another. Poor detention conditions also contribute to the dehumanization of those in custody. Overcrowding and an unsanitary environment within cells allow officers to conceive of those within their custody as sub-human and promote their ill-treatment accordingly. This is further compounded in situations where persons deprived of liberty go un-registered and are consequently unaccounted for in law enforcement records. Also, oversight of law enforcement agencies may foster an environment of accountability and responsibility. In this way, ensuring that interrogations are conducted in regularly-constituted locations under the supervision and control of clearly identifiable and independent judicial authorities serves to minimize the chances that torture will be applied.3 Similarly, improving the overall conditions of detention and interrogation facilities is likely to create an environment where torture is viewed as abhorrent to standard practice rather than acceptable. Laws and policies relating to the amount of time an individual can be held in police custody and the availability and effectiveness of complaint mechanisms can influence the propensity of an officer to engage in torture. If police are permitted to detain an individual for long, the interrogator is more likely to use a torture technique that seeks to break the will of the victim by subjecting him to various forms of stress. Because the victim realizes that he could potentially spend a substantial period in custody, he is more likely to be overcome by the violence than would, perhaps, an individual who knows that his torment will end within a relatively short amount of time. In this way, the allowable duration of detention will affect the calculus of an officer as to whether or not torture will be an effective investigatory tool. The Convention against Torture and other international norms provide important limitations on the use of statements and confessions obtained through torture. Article 15 of the Convention requires States to ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made. The evidentiary rules of individual States recognize this exclusionary rule as an important deterrent to the use of torture as a means of criminal investigation. The rejection of statements collected under duress demands simply the existence of a legal rule and the integrity of a justice system to uphold that rule. No additional resources on the part of the State are needed in order to give meaning to Article 15, except that interrogating officials must be trained in how effectively to solicit and obtain information without resorting to torture. The importance of this exclusionary rule cannot be overstated in terms of the preventative function it serves. Accordingly, States should guarantee that invocation
280
281
of this rule does not require prohibitively high proof of torture. Because the effects of abuse may not always be physically apparent, asking a victim to submit legally cognizable proof of torture before a statement will be excluded undermines the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule by prompting interrogators to resort to less apparent forms of violence.
Prevention of torture
At the heart of efforts to protect against torture is an approach that centralizes preventative measures to make sure that the absolute prohibition of the use of torture is effectively implemented. Of particular interest, with regard to torture as a means for investigation, is Convention against Torture Article 11 which requires State parties to keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture. Accordingly, States do have international obligations which are incompatible with the use of torture as a means of investigation. In practice, States can take a variety of measures to address the risk of torture posed to detainees and other persons deprived of their liberty.4 At first the highest authorities in countries must emphasize their opposition to torture by condemning its use in no uncertain terms and ensuring a wide understanding amongst State agents and representatives that torture will not be tolerated and set safeguards that ensure that detainees are better protected, especially at the earliest stages of detention when they are most vulnerable to torture and ill-treatment. These measures include, but are not limited to, systematically ensuring that detainees have access to the writ of habeas corpus and are able to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest as well as the conditions of their detention. They must also have regular access to legal counsel, to visits by family members and medical doctors; their interrogations must be video-taped. Moreover, relatives of the suspect should be informed of the arrest. Prolonged solitary confinement* should be prohibited and suspects should be brought before a judge within forty-eight hours of being detained. Additionally, rigorous maintenance of arrest and detention registries and mandatory systems of medical examinations at arrest, release or transfer to another place of detention by law enforcement personnel are essential to make sure that torture and ill-treatment are promptly detected and dealt with, whenever they occur.
The context in which a person is hold may be an important element in enabling the practice of torture for the purpose of investigation. In March 2011, the Human Rights Council resolution 16/23 reaffirmed that Prolonged incommunicado* detention or detention in secret places can facilitate the perpetration of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and can in itself constitute a form of such treatment. The resolution urges all States to respect the safeguards concerning the liberty, security and the dignity of the person and to ensure that secret places of detention and interrogation are abolished. Furthermore, effective investigation and reporting, coupled with prosecution, redress and reparation, when torture and illtreatment take place, is essential in preventing torture.
Accountability for torture

Guaranteeing that those who commit acts of torture are held responsible for these violations is an important part of eradicating the practice, particularly in the context of criminal investigations. The exclusionary rule functions to ensure that statements obtained through torture cannot be used in a criminal case against the victim, thereby providing a disincentive to the practice of torture. This tool, however, only works in limited circumstances. If there is no criminal prosecution of the victim of torture, either because the interrogation and torture produced insufficient incriminating information or for reasons of prosecutorial discretion, then the exclusionary rule has little value as a deterrent. Additionally, even if a particular statement is excluded during the course of criminal proceedings, this may be insufficient to persuade violent law enforcement officers unconcerned with such proceedings that torture is not useful. This may be particularly true in countries where the aim pursued by torturing public officials is not to bring criminals to justice but to infiltrate and destroy organizations considered criminal by the State. Accordingly, the disincentive to torture must be combined with accountability for acts of torture that do occur. The standard in domestic criminal law for what constitutes punishable torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment must comport with international norms, and the penalties contemplated should reflect the gravity of such crimes. Although States have some autonomy in promulgating those standards, they should provide for meaningful accountability for acts of torture found to have been committed. It is my view that a more victim-centred approach for survivors of torture should be mainstreamed in torture prevention, protection, and accountability. Although there are not as of yet any formal principles or guidelines which give minimum standards for victims, it is all the more important for them to have a central
282
283
role in pursuing accountability. Any such standards, therefore, should ensure that a victim of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full a rehabilitation as possible.5 This could take the form of direct or indirect engagement in criminal proceedings against perpetrators of torture, opportunities to bring claims for civil liability against their torturers, or any other form of engagement that seeks to recognize and validate the trauma of their experience while simultaneously upholding the rights of the defendant to a fair trial. Additionally, the standards should not impose prohibitive burdens of proof on victims of torture who are usually in a disadvantaged position in term of access to evidence regarding their interrogation. In order to give meaning to the need for accountability, States need to enact effective independent complaint mechanisms. The independent nature of such mechanisms will promote the filing of complaints by individuals who have been subjected to torture by public officials and who consequently may feel deterred from filing a complaint with a State mechanism. To be effective, these independent mechanisms should exist in each site of detention and interrogation. Beyond simply taking complaints, an independent mechanism should be charged with prompt and thorough investigation of the allegations by an impartial entity. This will ensure that the complaint mechanism is not simply ratifying acts of torture by failing to act on a complaint. Additionally, the relevant authorities of such an independent mechanism should be able to pursue disciplinary and penal sanctions against those involved in acts of torture.
In theory, torture functions by creating a level of fear in the victims that breaks their will to withhold information. However, the extremely traumatic physical and psychological effect of torture distorts the accuracy or precision of the information obtained. An individual subjected to extreme physical or mental stress may relay information that is incomplete, exaggerated, or even wholly untrue. Thus, confessions and statements obtained under torture are inherently unreliable, and often disorient and disperse the efforts of law enforcement and investigations personnel.6 Developments in the fields of forensic and other sciences, however, offer credible alternatives in the context of investigations.7 Indeed, some of these investigation methods are more effective in advancing the legitimate crime fighting aim of States. By placing emphasis on access to these reliable tools, States can ensure that they fulfill their responsibility to address and investigate allegations of crimes by also ensuring human rights are protected. This in turn will lead to an overall promotion of the rule of law. Additionally, States can adopt interrogation policies that involve audio or video recording technology in order to minimize the need to repeatedly question suspected individuals. By recording the activities that unfold during the course of an interrogation, an officer has less reason to follow up with a second session of questioning if answers were already provided during the first. Such technology can also provide for more targeted and effective interrogating by allowing officers to review the answers received on initial questioning before following up. The oversight provided by video or audio technology also helps to promote an environment of accountability where individual officers feel that their activities in interrogating an individual will be recorded and can possibly be used to hold them accountable later. Instead of feeling that they can conduct an investigation without any supervision as to the way information is obtained, officers will now feel scrutinized and compelled to act humanely and in line with relevant legal standards.
Alternative tools of investigation

Another important aspect of the elimination of torture as a means of criminal investigation is the expansion of the range of alternative investigatory tools available to State agents. As Special Rapporteur, I intend to promote the use of scientific methods and technologies for crime detection and evidence as a primary focus during my tenure. If there are more ways of obtaining information that do not require resorting to torture, public officials will be less likely to employ torture in the course of their investigations. Additionally, alternative tools that produce more reliable information than would be produced by torture also serve to decrease the probability that torture will be used. The clear value of such technology notwithstanding, there will be a need for good faith efforts by States to ensure that concrete steps are taken to systematize the resort to new technologies in criminal investigation and crime prevention.
The Role of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is one of the various UN mechanisms that support States compliance with the ban on torture. I have the honor of holding this esteemed role since November 2010 and in performing it, I report to the Human Rights Council on issues of torture world-wide. The work of the Special Rapporteur is not limited to the State parties to any convention; it encompasses both fact-finding and the submission of
284
285
urgent appeals related to individuals at risk of torture. Independent monitoring and reporting of torture and ill-treatment and inspection of places of interrogation and detention by international, regional or national mechanisms remain some of the most effective deterrent measures against torture. In this regard, country visits and the follow-up to such visits by the Special Rapporteur on Torture allows him to estimate in person the situation of torture and ill-treatment in a country. This involves visits to places of detention where he can meet with detainees and seek a first-hand account of the use of torture by public officials. The assessments and recommendations made by the Rapporteur open a dialogue with States and relevant partners with a view to addressing torture and ill-treatment. While country visits of the Special Rapporteur can give important insights and snapshots of the situation of torture in a State, national preventative mechanisms provide the much needed regular monitoring of places of detention as well as of the enabling conditions that generate torture and ill-treatment. National mechanisms are better placed, in cooperation with other local actors, to push for the promotion of criminalization of torture, and where such legislation exist, for effective adherence to national legal frameworks and provisions. An example of the UN support for compliance with the obligation to investigate is exemplified in the collaborative work of the Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism, who identified ten areas of best practices for fighting terrorism. In this list, the Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism included a reassertion of the absolute and non-derogable nature of the prohibition against torture, providing suggestions to States on how to conduct terrorism-related investigations without breaching this forbiddance. In these ways, the UN can assist States in understanding how to balance their competing responsibilities while simultaneously ensuring the ban on torture.
[1] The author wishes to acknowledge the valuable research and writing assistance by Ms. Kavita Kapur, JD candidate, Washington College of Law, American University, and of Mr. Tsatsu Dawson, of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva. [2] Many States expressed their difficulties in satisfying the obligation to investigate torture during the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Torture held in Geneva on 7 March 2011. [3] Statement by Juan E. Mndez, Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 7 March 2010, at 6 p.m. [4] See Amnesty International's 12-Point Programme for the Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by Agents of the State, ACT 40/001/2005. [5] United Nations, Convention against Torture, Art. 14, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm. [6] United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E. Mndez, A/HRC/16/52, 3 February 2011, 17 pages, p. 13, http://www2.ohchr.org/ english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A.HRC.16.52.pdf. [7] Statement by Juan E. Mndez, Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 7 March 2010, at 5 p.m.
Conclusion
An understanding of how torture occurs in investigation settings, and more specifically how the probability that torture will be used is affected by various enabling factors, the existence of a framework for accountability, and the availability of alternative tools can help States to consider what steps need to be taken in order to eradicate torture.
287
TWO PORTRAITS OF TORTURERS IN A CONTEMPORARY NOVEL

interview with jrme ferrari , professor of philosophy and writer, author of the
novel O jai laiss mon me [Where I left my soul]1
25, 26 and 27 March 1957. After having survived the battle of Dien Bien Phu and the Viet Minh camps, Lieutenant Andreani and Captain Degorce find themselves in Algiers, at the heart of the hunt for information conducted against the combatants of the National Liberation Army (Arme de libration nationale or ALN). The former, who is in charge of a special section assigned to torture and eliminate prisoners, does his duty with fervour and loyalty. The latter, a former resistance fighter tortured by the Gestapo, moody and filled with shame after each torture session, seeks unlikely relief from the head of the ALN, Tarik Hadj Nacer, aka Tahar, whom the French army has just captured. It is with these scruples and contradictions that Horatio Andreani rebukes him in first-person questionings that mark the rhythm of the tale of these three Algerine days.
How can a novelist take hold of such a sensitive topic as torture during the Algerian War of Independence and convert it into a story? It was very difficult. This is my sixth book, but it really had to convince me. I thought a lot about the risks, especially of being completely off the mark or of writing a text where I might, unbeknownst to me, catch the reader in some sort of fascination for this topic. The main challenge for me was to manage to speak of the obscenity without writing an obscene novel. Two testimonies taken from the French director Patrick Rotman TV documentary, Lennemi intime [The intimate enemy], which I saw in Algiers in 2005 when I was teaching at the international high school, gave me a starting point. The first is that of the
288
289
captain in Colonel Bigeard's 3rd Colonial Parachute Regiment who, in February 1957, arrested Larbi Ben MHidi, the leader of the National Liberation Front (Front de libration nationale or FLN) in Algiers, and held him for several days before handing him over to General Aussaresses, who had the prisoner executed and disguised his death as a suicide. I was very impressed by the admiration with which he spoke of his enemy and I saw a first confrontation between actions and faith. This officer explains how, after the Battle of Algiers, he could not enter a church anymore and, at the end of the interview, he says something like, I dont believe I lost my honour in Algeria, but let's just say I left part of my soul there. So he also gave me a title for the book. The second testimony comes from a person to whom I dedicated the novel, Jean-Yves Templon, who had just come out of a Catholic high school and was performing his military service over there. He told Patrick Rotman that his second day there was the first time in his life that he saw pornographic photographs, stuck up on the wall of the barracks, and a man being tortured. He carries on with illuminating musings on the fascination both visions held for him. There then came a long period of maturation for the emotion to become a book, with a structure, tone, voices and characters that were no longer historical characters. I wanted the narration to fit within three days and to approach the face-to-face meeting between the French officer and the Algerian prisoner by referring to the passage where Pilate is in front of Christ in Mikhail Bulgakov's novel, Le Matre et Marguerite [The Master and Marguerite].2
How does having to face torture from the torturers side silence one? I neither want nor can speak of torturers in general; I can only imagine what happens in a character's head, and all the more so as not all people who torture react the same way. I even fear some of them enjoy the sleep of the righteous without any problem. But the character of Andr Degorce corresponds to a historic reality, to this officer who expresses insurmountable unease in the documentary. So I imagined that this captain was the victim of the disconnection between how, intellectually, he understood the need of things and how he lived them emotionally. I guess that, at the time, the French soldiers must have seen the practice of torture during the Battle of Algiers as necessary for the greater good. In fact, that's the general tenor of any logical justification of torture, and always with that reference to the innocent victims that must be saved. Deep down, Andr Degorce doesnt forgive himself for adopting this discourse. What's more, for all his inner movements of remorse and guilt, absolutely nothing leads to anything and, all things considered, he performs his work as a torturer with the same efficiency as would a person without any moral concerns.
So what distinguishes the two torturers appearing in your work, Lieutenant Andreani and Captain Degorce? Instead of opposing one officer who applies torture to another who refuses to do so, I thought it would be more interesting to confront two characters whose acts are not that dissimilar, but who experience them differently. Neither did I want Horatio Andreani, a non-believer, to be a fool or a pervert. He over-assumes responsibility for his acts, and does so with such cynicism and such exaggeration that the reader may suspect this is mere posturing and wonder, in the end, just who it is who speaks in the title.
Precisely, you headed each of the three days/chapters of your novel with verses from the Bible.3 Why? These quotes came empirically. Captain Degorce had to be a Christian churchgoer. It was essential for me, since from the very onset, I had no intention of writing about bastards or sadists. I imagined this character as someone who no longer has a voice and can no longer speak for himself. He expresses himself quite well for official purposes, but when comes the time for him to create some personal discourse, particularly when speaking to his wife and children through his letters or when speaking to God in his daily prayers, he cant find the words anymore. Then I told myself that he was going to replace his nightly prayer by a random reading from the Old and New Testaments. Then, I realized those passages of the Bible I had already selected could illustrate the entire development of the day as well as being those he was reading.
Do you believe that Lieutenant Andreani really accepts his status as a torturer or that he is merely trying to protect himself from the horror of his actions? I leave this question open. One thing is certain: Horatio Andreani is neither an ideologist nor an idealist; nor is he someone who deludes himself into thinking he's acting for Good against Evil, as he believes in neither. This character's sole ethics consist in telling himself: There you go. I belong to one side, and Ill do all that's needed for it to win, even though, objectively, those who oppose us are no more and no less worthy than we are.
290
291
One often hears these words among soldiers. Is telling themselves that they could just as easily have belonged to the enemy side, given different circumstances, not a sort of way out for them? Actually, I encountered this idea in works I read after writing the novel, particularly in La question [The question],4 in a passage where Henri Alleg, tortured for three days but still unyielding, is almost congratulated by one of his torturers, as if they had gone through some trial together. This psychological process is easy enough to understand. Soldiers were made for combat; in my opinion, they cant have been happy with having to take on this terrible mission. It follows that they tried to inject some romantic warrior ideology that really doesnt belong there, but allows them to consider that, perhaps, one is not completely lost. I believe General Bigeard used to pay his respects to the prisoners and admit to them that, had he been born in Algeria, he might have been there instead of them. Going back to the notion of fascination and the relation between torture and pornography which you evoked, do you believe torture can be fascinating? I am absolutely convinced of this, because that would make so many things more understandable. Except that this fascination is, at the same time, the flaw that completely ruins the logical reasoning behind strenuous interrogations, since it shows that torture entails something more than the will to obtain information: power relationships, the urge to destroy the other or affirm oneself, in short, things that no longer have anything to do with the protection of innocent lives.
Does this mean that French soldiers could find it normal for the Germans to have subjected them to the same fate? I dont know. I dont know whether the situation I describe was a common one. On the other hand, I remember this witness in Lennemi intime who spent his military service submitting prisoners to the ggne [electric shocks] and who manages to put much of what he did in perspective. He even asks Patrick Rotman to stop using the word torture, which he finds somewhat exaggerated. And at the end of the interview, he speaks of the cruelties he suffered at the hands of an FLN katiba with the same detachment. This testimony is amazing: everything he did, everything others did to him, all of it is fair game. I dont believe he really saw it that way at the time; I believe he developed this discourse in hindsight. I also spent a lot of time trying to understand why there were so many lies from soldiers like General Bigeard. A careful perusal of their texts led me to the realisation that these were not lies, but rather euphemisms: they dont refuse to say they used the ggne, but they refuse to describe this as torture and justify this refusal, of course, by the atrocities committed by the FLN. This discourse came up from time to time during the meetings I had with readers, as if one side's dirty tricks could be excused by the other side's dirty tricks. One always sees this need of torturers to justify themselves, else they could not live with something so completely unjustifiable. The greatest moral errors never want for any justification. I never saw this need to explain as a good sign; on the contrary, it demonstrates the value of General de Bollardire's rejection of torture, a rejection offered with absolutely no justification, a rejection founded on principle. He didnt want to practice or condone torture, whatever the reason; he simply didnt want to practice or condone torture, period, and so he resigned from his command in Algeria.
You have Horatio Andreani say: no victim has ever had the slightest difficulty in becoming a torturer, at the first change in circumstances.5 How do you explain this reversal and the fact that Captain Degorce not only goes from torture victim to torturer, but uses this past experience to coax and cajole his prisoners into speaking? For Andr Degorce, I was looking for some idea that he would find completely intolerable. As one progresses through life by using past experiences, I told myself that he would have feel that his stay at the Gestapo headquarters in Besanon was already meant to prepare him to perform this mission later on, and that, therefore, even his past as a victim was but a dry run to become a better torturer. As for switching from one status to another, it shows the sovereign logical power of the justification discourse for torture. Algeria is probably a paradigm for this issue, since a certain number of career officers who served there had previously served in the Resistance.
How can you have Andr Degorce, a Christian who is not supposed to entertain utilitarian considerations, say that torture is only acceptable morally because it is effective?, This character is in search of a code of moral conduct, something that will reconcile the irreconcilable. He tries to tell himself that, as torture serves a greater good, any spillover that would lead one outside of the strict guidelines of the mission, i.e. obtaining information to save lives, must be avoided at all costs. For me, the illusion lies in imagining you can stake out the territory and, from the onset, define limits within which you can confine yourself.
292
293
What difference do you see between the two Christian characters, the Catholic high-school graduate who is present at and later participates in sessions of torture and Captain Degorce? The former is far more naive, which may be why he loses his faith in the end. He comes in, he does what is asked of him, he is both docile and broken. This is another aspect I owe to Jean-Yves Templon, whom I met with on various occasions. For him, the hardest thing to live with, now, is to remember that he looked on while someone was being tortured and said nothing. He thought his education, his humanities and his faith would protect him from this quiet acquiescence, and cant explain what happened. According to him, they were many who saw this as a show, and they were fascinated, as if this vision seeped through their cultural veneer and spoke directly to what was darkest and most squalid within them.
In your book, both the equanimous torturer and the guilt-ridden one end up in hell. Why? That's a literary device. When Horatio Andreani talks to Andr Degorce some forty or fifty years later, he is not in a realistic place, but rather on a stage, in a dream, or in a hell where these two men are not tortured, just abandoned. I wanted the lieutenant to understand that the captain expected to be punished, finally, and that damnation was therefore the only possible sign of compassion towards him.
Doesnt remorse save Captain Degorce from hell? Not at all! This character has many shortcomings, but believing his remorse is enough to save him isnt one of them.
Do you think some people develop a greater awareness of the horror of torture than others, or are chance circumstances the only thing that causes one to fall into the practice of torture? I think apparatus and training exert an enormous influence, the proof being this conversion to torture of nearly an entire generation of soldiers who were not so predestined, but I also note there have been exceptions.
Why is Andr Degorce spellbound by the Algerian prisoner, even confiding in him? Ill give you two answers, a historical one, and then a literary one. Originally, there were the photographs of Larbi Ben MHidi's arrest in 1957. He was no doubt smart enough to know he was done for, but his face is incredibly serene. Historically, his attitude caused a powerful impression on all those who came into contact with him. The scene I depict, in which Captain Degorce orders Tahar to be saluted, actually occurred with the leader of the FLN in Algiers. Afterwards, while developing the novel, I told myself that, in fact, the captain probably envied this man who had also ordered horrible things, yet did not seem to suffer morally. He feels he is in the presence of someone who, miraculously, didnt leave his soul behind and holds a secret that could save his jailer. Is this a question of faith? Or a question of cause, insofar as Tahar was defending the liberation of his country while Captain Degorce saw himself more or less as an oppressor? In terms of faith, I dont know how that would be possible. I dont say so in the novel, since Tahar doesnt speak much and must remain hidden behind an incomprehensible attitude. Obviously, there's no doubt in my mind that the Algerian cause was a legitimate one, but that isnt the fundamental issue for me. And that's precisely it: the legitimacy of a struggle or aspiration doesnt purify everything done in its name.
You do stress the physical proximity between the torturer and his victim. You come back to this need to moralise immoral practices. I get my hands dirty, but I do so properly; I torture and kill people, but I look at them. I introduce some moral rectitude in actions which have none. Besides, I also wanted to underline the carnal and incarnate aspect of torture, which is anything but abstract.
All the more so as there is often a sexual dimension in torture, with naked, raped bodies This is a nearly systematic and universal aspect, which I believe calls back to the archaic core of the human spirit. I remember an article on the commonplace practice of rape in Egyptian police stations, and particularly the photographs of Abu Ghraib, with this young female American holding Iraqi prisoners under leash. She was following no operating instructions, she just did whatever went through her mind and might go through anybody's mind.
294
295
Among soldiers, the notion of esprit-de-corps may also be a factor in accepting torture. In relation to the works I consulted, I get the impression that the effect of the group's training and of obedience were a greater factor in the contingent. Within units like the paratroops, who werent very disciplined, there is no discourse of submission to orders or blind training mechanism; rather, the idea was that torture was the right thing to do, what I find most interesting.
[1] FERRARI, Jrme. O jai laiss mon me [Where I left my soul], Arles, Actes Sud, 2010, 159 pages. [2] BOULGAKOV, Mikhal. Le Matre et Marguerite [The Master and Marguerite], Paris, ditions Robert Laffont, 1968, 528 pages. [3] Genesis, 4:10, God's questioning of Cain: And He said, What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground.; Matthew, 25:41-43, the parable of the Last Judgment: Then He will also say to those on the left hand, Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.; John, 2:24-25, Jesus insight into man's nature: But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men, and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man. [4] ALLEG, Henri. La question, [The question] Lausanne, The City, 1958, 125 pages. [5] O jai laiss mon me [Where I left my soul], p. 23. [6] Ibidem, p. 74.
Can you picture your characters returning, if possible, to a normal life? From a historical point of view, yes. Some torturers even went on to export their skills to Africa or America, as Paul Aussaresses did in the United States.
What role can literature play in the debate on torture? I believe the novelist can do things the historian cant, because of the objectivity which is the foundation for the scientificity of the latter's work. Novels are a way of accessing a kind of truth which doesnt allow itself to get bogged down by the accuracy of facts. By penetrating deep into the mind and conscience of a character who doesnt exist, who thinks things that have never been thought exactly that way before, you can still manage to say something about how men behave. I speak of things about which I have absolutely no experience, but I do so because I believe each of us has enough dark sides within him to grasp the problem.
But do you believe it is easier for your characters to turn to torture than to take up the contrary position? Evil requires much simpler training. The position of General de Bollardire is a heroic one, not only because he is staking his career, but also because he stands virtually alone, he has the courage to stand alone thinking something which goes against everything being thought at the time. In this regard, the letter of resignation of Paul Teitgen, Chief of Staff of the Algiers Prefecture, is just as awe-inspiring, when he states he can no longer continue with his work after having recognized on some prisoners the deep marks left by the abuse and torture I personally suffered, fourteen years ago, in the cellars of the Gestapo in Nancy. These men refuse to sign on to the notion of effectiveness; all right, Paul Teitgen did so at one time, but only to observe that by seeking short-term effectiveness, you propagate hate and labour towards your own defeat.
Interview conducted by Jean-tienne de Linares and Olivia Moulin on 27 June 2011, with the contribution of Anne-Ccile Antoni, Chairperson of ACAT-France from 2008 to 2010.
297
DEATH PENALTY AND TORTURE

ccile marcel , ACAT-France Program Director
Currently, there are more than 20,000 persons around the world sitting on death row; some have been there for decades. In 2010, at least 527 convicts were executed in 23 countries, by hanging, firing squad, decapitation, stoning, or lethal injection, and over 2,000 people were sentenced to death,1 often after unfair trials. Still, does capital punishment constitute a form of torture or of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment? From the point of view of international law, no. Or at least, not yet, since the case law in this field is constantly evolving. At this time, it would be tantamount to declaring the 92 States which keep capital punishment in their legal arsenal outlaws,2 since the prohibition against torture is absolute and under no circumstance may it be ignored. However, from the point of view of those sentenced to death and their families, there can be no doubt that capital punishment is torture. Brutal torture, always, at the moment of the execution. Slow, insidious torture, sometimes, which they feel in their heart and their flesh during the long years where anguish, hope and misfortune blend in expectation of the predicted death.
The killing
Since the days of Antiquity and up to modern times, execution has entailed corporal punishments and the will to cause pain. The prisoner's torment was most often offered as a show on the public square, as an example meant to dissuade, but mostly to display the majestic, awesome power of sovereignty.3 With the emergence and progress of human rights, capital punishment only became acceptable insofar as it is applied in a manner likely to cause the least suffering possible.4
298
299
The recent history of capital punishment is therefore marked by the increasing and futile search by most of the countries that apply it for a clean, fast and efficient method of execution. For example, the guillotine was invented during the French Revolution in order to propose a human alternative to the techniques used until then: decapitation by the sword or axe, hanging, the breaking wheel or quartering. It took the name of a Member of Parliament, Dr Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, who, horrified by the sight of a hanging, had the National Constituent Assembly adopt the principle of a simple, unique mechanism that would afford immediate, painless death. In the United States, the electric chair, hanging and lethal gas have been progressively replaced by the lethal injection, deemed more human. It is now being used in the 34 States that apply capital punishment, although in some of them, the condemned is allowed a choice of mode of execution. But is there such a thing as a human way to kill? Nowadays, six methods of execution continue to be used around the world: electrocution, decapitation, stoning, the hanging, lethal injection, and the firing squad, the last three being those most commonly used. In April 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States judged that lethal injection did not contravene the 8th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. Yet this procedure remains highly controversial. First implemented in 1977, it calls for the successive injection of three products: sodium thiopental, which seeks to anesthetise the condemned prisoner; pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes the muscles; and potassium chloride, which provokes a cardiac arrest. The potassium chloride's passage through the veins is so painful that it has been forbidden by the American Veterinary Medical Association. Because of its blocking action, pancuronium bromide immobilizes the diaphragm and lungs and causes asphyxia in the injected person. Furthermore, the injection of these two products is only painless if the anaesthetic was completely effective, which is not always the case. There have been many examples of botched executions, which lead to the conclusion that the prisoner had died after atrocious suffering,5 as in the case of Angel Diaz, executed in Florida on 13 December 2006. According to witnesses, Angel Diaz was still moving twenty-four minutes after the lethal injection, his face contorted, apparently trying to speak, gasping for air. After twentysix minutes, his body jerked violently. As the heart monitors indicated he was still alive, he was given another deadly dose. It was only thirty-four minutes after the lethal injection that his death was recorded. Recently, some US States have been facing a shortage of sodium thiopental and replacing it by pentobarbital, used to euthanize animals. However, this product was not tested for human use.
The same goes for the other methods used in executions. As regards firing squads, the objective is to damage a vital organ to provoke death, but the latter's instantaneity is far from evident and, quite often, an officer must deliver the coup de grce. Likewise, execution by hanging, to avoid the agony of slow asphyxiation, must consist in a violent fall which results in a clean break of the cervical vertebrae. But here too, failures occur frequently, particularly if the ratio between the prisoner's weight and the length of the rope is not calculated properly. In an investigative report made in Pakistan, the International Federation for Human Rights (Fdration internationale des ligues des droits de lHomme, or FIDH) quotes a prison official who claimed to have, once or twice witnessed condemned prisoners agonise for twenty or thirty minutes before finally dying6. However, in Iran, hanging is carried out by means of a mobile telescopic crane that raises the body of the prisoner, who dies of suffocation. Thus, in some countries, the choice of the mode of execution can still be tied to the intention of inflicting pain to the prisoner. Such is particularly the case of stoning, still legal in Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen, and in certain States of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, but nowadays practiced only in Iran. However, such cases involve corporal punishments forbidden by international law and clearly recognized as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatments.
Detention conditions
While there is growing concern to shorten the torment of prisoners sentenced to death at the moment of their execution, there is paradoxically no such concern in the treatment afforded them in life. According to international standards, prisoners sentenced to death should enjoy the same rights as other prisoners. In reality, the conditions under which they are detained are often far more difficult than those for the rest of the prison population. They are generally kept in complete isolation, have no access to leisure and other activities offered to the other prisoners, are granted extremely limited opportunities for taking walks, and are often the victims of violence or ill-treatment at the hands of the prison staff. For example, during a visit at Beijing's Municipal Detention Centre No. 2, Manfred Nowak then Special Rapporteur* on Torture for the United Nations noted that prisoners sentenced to death were handcuffed and shackled with leg-irons weighing some three kilograms around the ankles, twenty-four hours a day, under all circumstances.7 During a mission in Mongolia, he strenuously condemned the conditions under which prisoners sentenced to death were being held, conditions he qualified as torture: these prisoners were handcuffed and chained, fed inadequately, and placed in solitary confinement*.8
300
301
In those countries where the prison system is already under the strain of chronic ills (overpopulation, malnutrition, lack of hygiene and suitable medical care), living conditions for death row inmates are all the harsher given that their detention is indefinitely long and that they must always remain locked in their cells, with little if any access to the yard. Thus, the Supreme Court of Uganda, in a 2009 ruling, decreed that holding prisoners under such conditions beyond three years was excessive.9 This in fact constitutes a dual sentence: it is as if capital punishment being viewed more as a virtual punishment until it has been applied it were necessary to inflict upon the prisoner sentenced to death conditions that transform the hypothetical future sanction into a day-to-day punishment. This treatment is also the result of the prisoner's dehumanisation. Once capital punishment has been imposed, the prisoner already ceases to be fully alive. Thus, those in charge of the Nagoya penitentiary in Japan voluntarily limit death row inmates visits and contacts with the outside world, in order to not stimulate them.10 This they see as a suicide prevention measure! Generally speaking, the fate reserved for convicts sentenced to death in this country is characteristic of this dehumanisation: they are not allowed to communicate with other inmates; they have limited contact with the outside world; they are not allowed to watch television; they may listen to the radio, but have no say in choosing the station; they are only allowed to leave their cells for two weekly thirty-minute periods in summer, three in winter; the rest of the time, they are not allowed to exercise in their cells or to lie down outside of rest hours, and must remain sitting. As a security measure, the light is always on in their cells.
The psychological consequences and sufferings of this phenomenon on convicts are now known as the death row syndrome; its most frequent symptoms include an overwhelming feeling of fear and impotence; phases of depression and mental confusion; a state of weariness; periods of drowsiness; signs of senility; self-mutilations; or even insanity.12 In the United States, the suicide rate is estimated to be ten times higher among death row inmates than in the general population and significantly higher than among other inmates.13 In 2007, the number of death row suicides in the State of California even surpassed the number of executions, thus becoming the second cause of in-prison mortality after natural deaths. Despite being placed under strict surveillance, they manage to hang themselves with their bed sheets or to open their veins with improvised tools. At the same time, the United States has seen, over these last few years, an exponential increase in the number of voluntary executions, where some convicts waive their appeals to haste the date of their execution. It is interesting to note how this rise is proportional to the extension of the average term of detention in death row. Indeed, this waiting period has been rising constantly, mostly due to the increasing length of judicial procedures and the burgeoning of appeals. In the United States, the average term of detention on death row is fourteen years.14 In Nigeria, it was twenty years in 2005.15 In Japan, over a third of prisoners sentenced to death have been waiting more than a decade for their execution. During all this time, the convict must live under the constant threat of his coming death. In his Thoughts on the guillotine,16 Albert Camus was already describing the torment of this waiting: There again, when our official jurists speak of inflicting a painless death, they dont know what theyre talking about and, more importantly, they lack imagination. The devastating, degrading fear a convict is subjected to for months or years to is a more terrifying suffering than death, and one the victim was not subjected to. As the execution date approaches, the burden of this anguish takes on extreme proportions. For example, one Pakistani jail director told the FIDH: most of the condemned lose it completely the eve of the execution.17 During this mission, the FIDH also heard the testimony of a former convict on the suffering of an inmate on death row: Another one, a sixty-year old man, got a stay of execution at 11 p.m. the night before you should have seen him dancing on the way back to the barracks. But when the execution finally happened, some weeks later, he spent the whole night crying, claiming his innocence. [] The hangman told me later that at the time of execution, his neck was so scrawny that he had to change the rope three times. And he was so scared that his body didnt hold out, he had defecated and urinated on himself.
Living in the torment of (un)certain death

Japanese death row inmates never know in advance when they will be executed. They are usually informed on the very morning of their execution. The worst time is between 8 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. The noise of the boots resonates in the corridor. The steps stop. You can imagine eyes riveted on the door, breathing suspended at the noise of the key, cold shivers running down your spine. Only that door separates you from death. A neighbouring cell is opened and the fatal phrase falls: The time has come".11 It is not unusual for this taxing expectation to provoke mental illnesses and drive one to madness. Since the eighties, this tendency has been defined and analyzed as the death row phenomenon, which combines generally three factors: the harshness of the conditions of imprisonment, described above, the excessive duration of the imprisonment, and the torment of living under the influence of a death sentence.
302
303
It is easy to imagine how much crueller capital punishment is to live with when the convict is innocent. Yet, a significant number of criminal justice systems fail to meet the requirements for a fair trial. Even in countries that assign considerable means to judicial system, it is not infallible. In the United States, in August 2011, 273 prisoners who had been sentenced to death were exonerated a number that has grown exponentially from year to year. This psychological tension affects not only the prisoner, but also his loved ones. All the more so, as the procedures are generally lengthy and complex, offer an uncertain conclusion at best, and generate strong emotions which alternate between hope, rage, confusion and discouragement. It may sometimes occur that the decision to not execute a convict is made at the last moment. Thus, on 23 March 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States stayed the execution of Hank Skinner thirty-five minutes before the scheduled time. In the end, while the prisoner is the only one under death sentence It's not just the inmate who is on death row. That whole family is on death row.18
International case law: contradictions and progress

International law does not forbid capital punishment, but it limits its use.19 For example, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that it may only be applied after a definitive sentence is rendered by a competent court at the end of a fair trial, and that it may only apply to the most serious crimes. Likewise, the United Nations Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty specify that where capital punishment occurs, it shall be carried out so as to inflict the minimum possible suffering. Nor does the case law of international bodies consider capital punishment to be a form of torture or of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In this sense, international courts and tribunals seem to follow an unassailable legal logic: it is impossible for them to view capital punishment as a violation of the provisions of international law forbidding torture and ill-treatment, since that very international law otherwise allows and regulates it.20 Faced with this legal constraint, international case law seems to beat around the bush. Thus, it has condemned certain methods of execution, the death row phenomenon, and the pain inflicted upon the families by likening them to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatments, but without condemning capital punishment per se.
And so, international bodies have deemed several methods of execution to be similar to torture. The United Nations Human Rights Commission described stoning, for example, as a particularly cruel and inhuman method of execution, while the Human Rights Committee* has qualified asphyxia in a gas chamber as being particularly hateful. But until now, the bodies tasked with monitoring the compliance to international treaties have refused to view lethal injection or execution by firing squad as inhuman treatments. A contradiction Manfred Nowak underlined in a report submitted to the Human Rights Council*: If even comparatively lenient forms of corporal punishment, such as ten strokes on the buttocks, are absolutely prohibited under international human rights law, how can hanging, the electric chair, execution by a firing squad and other forms of capital punishment ever be justified under the very same provisions?21 In the 1989 case of Soering Vs United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights concluded that a German national should not be extradited to the United States, where he risked the death penalty, stating that in light of the very long period that must be spent on death row under such extreme conditions, with the omnipresent and growing torment of the death penalty to be carried out, and of the plaintiff's personal situation, [] an extradition to the United States would expose the person involved to a real risk of treatment which goes beyond the threshold defined in Article 3. This acknowledgment of the cruel, inhuman and degrading nature of the death row syndrome may be found in the later case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.22 As for the UN Human Rights Committee, it appears far less responsive: it believes this syndrome can only constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if the delay in carrying out the sentence is a result of the State's failing or if the convict's mental health has deteriorated seriously during the detention, without access to adequate care. On the other hand, the Committee did acknowledge the anguish and psychological distress suffered by the convicts families. Thus, in the case of Staselovich Vs Belarus, in which a mother had not been able to obtain any information regarding the day of her son's execution and could not recover his body for proper burial, it decreed that the authorities initial refusal to notify the author of the date programmed for the execution of her son and their subsequent obstinate refusal to notify her of the location of the grave constituted inhuman treatment against her, in violation of Article 7 of the Covenant. This decision constituted a significant advance from the legal point of view, but, again, a paradox from the point of view of common sense: thus, killing this young man would be acceptable, but not so the fact of having kept his mother unaware of the details of his execution. The European Court of Human Rights finally crossed the most significant threshold, in a decision dated 2 March 2010, which constitutes the greatest advance to date in
304
305
this field. In the case of Al-Saadoon & Mufdhi Vs United Kingdom, the Court declared that the British government had violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights by sending Faisal Al-Saadoon and Khalaf Mufdhi back to Iraq, where they faced hanging. In its judgment, it adds, specifically: Whatever the method of execution, the extinction of life involves some physical pain. In addition, the foreknowledge of death at the hands of the State must inevitably give rise to intense psychological suffering. It concluded that judicial execution, which involves the deliberate and premeditated destruction of a human being by the State authorities, constituted inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.23 Despite the aforementioned contradictions, the evolution of the case law is keeping pace with the advances of international law as regards capital punishment. Thus, the latter's interdiction is now defined in the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1989, ratified by 73 States members of the United Nations, and regionally by Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Protocol 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ratified by 42 of the 47 States members of the Council of Europe, and the Protocol to the American Convention of Human Rights for the Abolition of the Death Penalty. Furthermore, on three occasions in 2007, 2008 and 2010 the General Assembly of the United Nations, estimating that the application of the death penalty undermines human dignity, adopted a resolution calling on those States which still apply it to institute a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty.
fear this argument may prove counter-productive, which might lead to the conclusion that capital punishment might become acceptable if it did not entail physical or mental suffering. Yet, it represents an attack on the right to life and should be forbidden regardless of the circumstances. But positions evolve. On the occasion of the 9th World Day Against Death Penalty, in October 2011, organizations belonging to the World Coalition against the Death Penalty chose to focus their efforts on the inhumanity of capital punishment and to seek, in this fashion, to bring about a change both in public opinion and in the reflection within international bodies. Furthermore, advances in international case law and law offer the hope for a progressive interdiction of capital punishment under international law, which will eventually combine with its recognition as a cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
[1] World Coalition against the Death Penalty, Facts and figures about the death penalty 2011, 23 August 2011, http://www.mediastroika.com/hosting/coalition/media/resourcecenter/Factsfigures2011-EN.pdf [2] Idem: in 2011, 97 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes, 8 countries had eliminated capital punishment for all crimes except exceptional crimes (such as those committed in wartime), 34 countries kept it on the law books but had not applied it for over ten years, and 58 countries and territories still applied it. [3] SARAT, Austin. When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the American Condition, Princetown, Princetown University Press, 2002, 352 pages, p. 66. [4] United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty, 25 May 1984, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/protection.htm [5] Human Rights Watch, So Long as They Die. Lethal Injections in the United States, April 2006, 65 pages, p. 46-54, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/04/23/so-long-they-die.
Conclusion: toward a prohibition against capital punishment

International law defines torture as an act by which pain or sharp, physical or mental suffering is deliberately inflicted upon a person by a governmental agent or any other person acting in an official capacity, notably to obtain information or confessions, or to punish, intimidate or pressure. In light of the above, it goes without saying that capital punishment, applied by representatives of the State to punish a convict, entails multiple sufferings and must be qualified as torture. This is ACAT-France's point of view, and one of the reasons that led it, in 1982, to incorporate into its mandate the fight against death penalty in addition to the abolition of torture. But human rights organizations have often proven reluctant to call the death penalty torture. In this, they adopt the legalistic view of international bodies, and prefer to call for compliance with international treaties and invite States to ratify texts that call for the abolition of the death penalty. They also
[6] International Federation for Human Rights (Fdration Internationale de la ligue des Droits de l'Homme FIDH) - Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), Slow march to the gallows: Death penalty in Pakistan, No. 464, January 2007, 64 pages, p. 59, http://www.fidh.org/IMG//pdf/Pakistan464angconjointpdm.pdf [7] United Nations, Human Rights Commission, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak MISSION TO CHINA, E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.6, 10 March 2006, 59 pages, p. 44, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/117/51/PDF/G0611751.pdf?OpenElement. [8] United Nations, Human Rights Commission, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, MISSION TO MONGOLIA, E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.4, 20 December 2005, 22 pages, p. 15-16, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/167/33/PDF/G0516733.pdf?OpenElement. [9] Supreme Court of Uganda, Attorney General v. Susan Kigula and 417 Others, No. 3 of 2006, 21 January 2009, 98 pages, p. 55, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,UGA_SC,,UGA,456d621e2,499aa02c2,0.html. [10] FIDH, La peine de mort au Japon : la loi du silence. contre-courant de la tendance internationale [The Death Penalty in Japan: The law of silence, going against the international trend], International fact-finding mission, October 2008, 56 pages, p. 37, http://www.fidh.org/IMG//pdf/Japon505f_6.10.2008.pdf. [11] World Coalition against the Death Penalty, Educational Guide, Teaching Abolition, 40 pages, Testimony of Sakae Menda, Japanese former death row inmate, now exonerated, p. 16, http://www.mediastroika.com/hosting/coalition/media/ resourcecenter/FR-GuidePeda2011.pdf. [12] Human Rights Advocates (HRA), The Death Row Phenomenon is a Violation of the Limitations Placed Under International Human Rights Law, Submission to the UN Human Rights Council, 4th Session, 2007.
on Capital Punishment
[13] SMITH, Amy. Not Waiving but Drowning: the Anatomy of Death Row Syndrome and Volunteering for Execution, The Boston University Public Interest Law Journal, Vol. 17:237, 2008, p. 238, http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/pilj/ vol17no2/documents/17-2SmithArticle.pdf. [14] U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Capital Punishment, 2009Statistical Tables, 2 December 2010, 23 pages, p. 1, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cp09st.pdf.
306
[15] United Nations, Human Rights Commission, 62nd session, Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Philip Alston, Addendum, MISSION TO NIGERIA, E/CN.4/2006/53/add.4, 7 January 2006, 38 pages, p. 2, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/106/40/PDF/G0610640.pdf?OpenElement. [16] CAMUS, Albert. Rflexions sur la guillotine [Thoughts on the guillotine], La nouvelle revue franaise, No. 54, Paris, Gallimard, 1 June 1957. [17] FIDH-HRCP, op. cit., p. 57. [18] World Coalition against the Death Penalty, The Inhumanity of the Death Penalty, leaflet for World Day 2011, Testimony of Martina Correia, sister of US death row inmate Troy Davis, http://www.mediastroika.com/hosting/coalition/media/ resourcecenter/BrochureJM2011en.pdf. [19] Except for optional protocols and regional conventions. [20] United Nations, Human Rights Council, 7th session, Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, A/HRC/10/44, 14 January 2009, 24 pages, p. 9, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/10session/A.HRC.10.44AEV.pdf. [21] Ibid., p. 11. [22] Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Vs Trinidad and Tobago, Decree, 21 June 2002. [23] European Court of Human Rights, Case of Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. The United Kingdom (Application no. 61498/08), Judgment, Strasbourg, 2 March 2010, http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=61 498/08&sessionid=87964287&skin=hudoc-en.
309
THE SOCIOECONOMIC AND CULTURAL CAUSES BEHIND TORTURE

ric sottas , Secretary General of the World Organization against Torture from1985 to 2011
If we admit today that torture occurs within determined structural contexts, twentyfive years ago, when the World Organization Against Torture published its first report highlighting the links between State-controlled violence and socioeconomic dysfunctions, it was met with deep incomprehension and even with wide-ranging scepticism. I believe the reasons for such reactions are a combination of three factors. Ethically, the common approach insisted on the individual responsibility of the torturer, the State agent who acted deliberately and consciously against universally acknowledged basic norms to destroy his victim's personality, either to make him talk, to terrorize him, or to punish him. Conceptually, international law tended to consider that only civil and political rights came under coercive norms. In most cases, their compliance supposed an abstention of the public officials and their violation easily identifiable was clearly defined and punished under international treaties and the positive law of States. Finally, ideologically, liberal societies with free market economies defended a view of the State as the protector of individual freedoms, but non-interventionist in the economic arena, whereas socialist systems with planned economies assigned to the State the crucial role of guaranteeing social justice by strictly controlling economic activity, even if this meant limiting individual freedoms.
310
311
Acknowledging the existence of structural reasons for torture seemed to make torturers unaccountable, or even to excuse actions that could no longer be ascribed to the perversity of their authors; to undermine the norms prohibiting this crime, the result of economic practices over which law had but a limited impact; and finally to politicize the fight against torture, which would demand a regulation of the activities of States and of the world economy. Furthermore, this approach partially questioned the action strategies then applied in the struggle against torture by pointing out their limitations. After World War II, the letter-writing campaigns of those organizations opposed to torture had, in the context of the Cold War, focused on victims of State-organized political repression and often neglected the situation of common law prisoners poorly documented and deemed rather unworthy of the public's sympathy, even by some human rights defenders. These actions combined blame and shame with political pressure, which could go as far as economic sanctions. According to Martin Ennals, Secretary General of Amnesty International from 1968 to 1980, the interest of letter-writing campaigns was based on this twofold observation: on the one hand, just like individuals, political leaders love to be loved and are conscious of their image; on the other hand, they seem concerned with existing power relationship, both international and domestic. So the strategy consisted in making those leaders responsible for serious human rights violations aware that their crimes, known to and condemned by world public opinion, damaged their reputation, and to incite the authorities of countries where freedom of speech prevailed to adopt measures against the agents of the torture State or risk losing the electorate's votes at the next poll. This method proved, and still proves, effective in cases of repression against political opponents.
From intuition to verification

Since the organization was founded in 1986, the OMCT leaders have become aware of the following data. Contrary to expectations and to certain erroneous perceptions, the fall of a number of dictatorial regimes did not lead to the disappearance of torture. Whether in Brazil or in Argentina, democracy certainly entailed the nearly total suspension of abuses against members of the opposition, but it did not prevent police agents from continuing to resort, often routinely, to torture as an interrogation technique for common law prisoners. Curiously, with the exception of the massacres of street children, this police violence has hardly caused any uproar, even sometimes from former political prisoners.
Furthermore, the phenomenon of torture prevailed essentially in so-called countries of the South and did not involve Western Europe, which is not to say that the latter was exempt from criticism. The deep conviction of the OMCT has always been that mankind and the various cultures that comprise it refer to the same fundamental values. However, these are affected and often seriously altered by the living conditions of the populations concerned, and especially by their outlook for development, both personal and collective. In 1988, the organization conducted a first empirical study on the possible relation between the torture practiced in certain States in this case, in Less Developed Countries (LDCs) which benefited from a privileged economic aid program conceived by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and implemented with the World Bank (WB) and the socioeconomic difficulties they faced. The results showed an obvious interrelationship between State-controlled violence in the civil and political arenas, highly deteriorated social conditions, and mediocre economic results compared to the rest of the world. It was not so much poverty as such, but rather the inequality in national income distribution that caused tensions within the society and hindered growth in these countries. Thereafter, the questions became what causality links can explain the observed phenomena, and what measures can be adopted to break the vicious circle of violence generating social marginalization, which in turn provokes new violence. But this approach must not broach cultural, social and economic questions solely from the political perspective of best practices, implying that torture could only be eradicated in a model society which had become just and equitable. The French and Soviet Revolutions remind us that the worst crimes are often committed in the name of the most elevated ideals. So, starting in 2003, the OMCT undertook a study on the relationship that existed between attacks on certain economic, social and cultural rights, known as ESCR, and the occurrence of torture, to detect the inter-reactions between these human rights violations. Based on five national realities (Argentina, Egypt, Nepal, South Africa, and Uzbekistan), this analysis then incorporated a study on the situation of female family heads in Sweden. At the same time, experts of the International Labour Office carried out international research that revealed a certain number of constants concerning the causality links between State-controlled violence and attacks against ESCR. Chains of violations allowed establishing the risks to which ESCR-related denial of justice can expose a population under given conditions. Certainly, there is no absolute mechanism, for a single violation may well not have the same effects. However, major themes are revealed in most continents, and alerts may legitimately be declared to prevent the occurrence of violence seriously affecting identifiable populations or sectors.
312
313
For example, the right to food, linked to the right to land, often lies at the root of the violence abusively attributed to political, ethnic or religious conflicts. In India, in Colombia, but also in Rwanda and Burundi, where tensions are often assigned to, respectively, confrontations between castes or religious groups, political groups, and tribes, torture and massacres essentially affect peasants. Each time, the issues of land ownership and its allocation play a central role. In Colombia, for example, certain studies have revealed that agri-food companies appropriated millions of acres after the forced removal of farming populations by paramilitary groups. Subsistence farming has given way to agro-industrial production (oil palms and agro-fuels), while the 3 to 4 millions displaced peasants, 60% of whom were small landowners, eventually went to join the ranks of shantytown dwellers on the outskirts of major cities. Those who tried to resist or claim back their land were subjected to threats, violence and murder. The first version of the Justice and Peace law, which became effective in July 2005,1 established measures which sought to compensate, at the very least, despoiled agriculturists, and to secure the rights of the new owners. In the face of ensuing criticisms, notably from the Constitutional Court, a law of reparation, the Victims and Land Restitution Law, voted on 24 May 2011, recognizes the obligation to re-establish the rights of former owners, but it does not guarantee the latter's protection, as they are victims of intimidation and brutal treatment. The Burundi2 and Rwanda3 conflicts, which resulted in genocides on both sides of their shared border, also present an unquestionable economic dimension, to be found in all traditional societies. In Burundi, the Tutsis, consisting mainly of cattle ranchers, committed acts of extortion against the Hutus, who represent 80% of the population and mostly consist of farmers. The Rwanda massacre of Tutsis by Hutus can also be ascribed, at least in part, to issues related to the control of what little land is available in the country and to the dispute regarding its eventual use, whether cattle or crops. Certainly, hatreds and resentments between ethnic groups, which have been growing for the past fifty years, have now apparently taken on a life of their own, but tensions are not exclusively community-based. The high population density and insufficiency in agricultural resources remain sources of conflicts. The solution lies in a policy ensuring food autonomy and production variations, to permit an increase in income, less specialized economic activity, and a fairer distribution between ethnic groups. Finally, in India, the slaughters of Muslims by certain Hindu extremists and the discriminatory treatment reserved for the Dalit caste are also linked to the use of water resources and to access to the land in villages facing serious economic and social difficulties.
This aspect of conflicts allows us to understand why some reconciliation and pacification policies have failed in the past and may well fail again in the future. While it is essential that Truth and Reconciliation Commissions* shed light on abuses and restore the victims dignity, that the authors of torture ask for their forgiveness, and that these victims, if they can, accept it, these measures cannot suffice to foster true reconciliation. A return to the status quo ante must be guaranteed, as well as the acknowledgement and effective exercise of the rights denied to the victims, failing which lies the risk that those same injustices reopen wounds that will not have healed. To do so, not only must the ultimate crime, i.e. torture, be dealt with, but also all of the injustices committed, and particularly the denial of ESCR.
The respect of economic, social and cultural rights as a mechanism for the prevention of torture
Traditionally, the guarantee of the prohibition against torture rests on three complementary means: training for State agents; mechanisms allowing for the periodic visit of places of detention; and the prosecution and conviction of guilty parties. There is no question of challenging this arsenal, but rather of defining how the rise of conditions which favour the practice of torture can be avoided judicially, by attacking the problem at one of its fundamental roots. There are those who admit the existence of a causality link between a deteriorated socioeconomic environment and outbursts of violence in a given country, but question the possibility in such a context of any action which is a matter of law. According to them, ESCR offer no legally binding protective system and, in any event, in the most seriously affected economies, those responsible for attacks on human rights are beyond any national control thanks to their financial resources and their transnational structure, which dilutes responsibilities. Under international law, there is indeed a difference between the implementation of civil and political rights on the one hand and of economic, social and cultural rights on the other hand. The former, the intangible core of which consists, particularly, of the non-derogable rights enumerated in Article 4.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is subject to absolute norms, compliance with which presupposes, in principle, the State's abstention. No claim to any such right should therefore be subject to any conditionality or limitation. Furthermore, Article 2.1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights demands that the States parties act using all suitable means, to the utmost of their capacities, to progressively ensure the full exercise of the rights recognized in this text.
314
315
This distinction, which is relevant at first glance, becomes distinctly less obvious when one takes a closer look at reality. Concerning torture, the State has the obligation to ensure that its agents do not resort to violence, and also that they act in such a way that no such violence may be brought to bear by others with their implicit or explicit consent. Lack of diligence is widely penalized under international case law, which holds the State responsible in case of violations perpetrated by nonState-controlled agents when no adequate measures have been taken in despite the predictability of the crimes. This concept imposes a protective obligation that goes well beyond simple abstention. Likewise, in detention facilities, the violence exercised against prisoners is not limited to beatings and physical or psychological suffering; it also covers inhuman holding conditions, such as prison overcrowding, deficient food or deplorable sanitary conditions. For various experts, this does not constitute torture, because this is not the result of the prison staff's resolve. For the OMCT, the government must take the necessary measures so that detention conditions do not represent undue suffering. However, this supposes investments which some States claim are beyond their means, especially as their less-privileged citizens, themselves suffering from hunger, would not understand why a more favourable treatment should be given to prisoners. Thus, economic, social and cultural rights, as well as civil and political rights, can only be guaranteed by some action on the part of the State intended to create the conditions required for their effective exercise. The adoption in December 2008 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which will become effective after the tenth ratification, calls for a mechanism allowing for individual complaints (called communications*) which represents a noteworthy advance. Furthermore, the fact that this mechanism can only be called upon once all domestic remedies have been exhausted will encourage States to develop national systems that ensure ESCRrelated complaints are dealt with. Two observations bear stressing: torture is far more common in countries suffering from a combination of severe economic hardships and significant social disparities; and victims overwhelmingly belong to the least privileged sectors of such societies. These observations empirically establish the existence of a link between ESCR's violations and the phenomenon of torture, but do not determine its nature. OMCT research shows that each case should be analyzed considering its own dynamics and the interacting sociological, political and legal elements. One cannot identify those rights the violation of which would lead to torture, nor even define a minimum level below which one must not go.
The diversity of the situations that lead to torture can be illustrated by concrete situations. In Latin America, street children deprived of their rights to food, housing, health and education have developed survival techniques (trafficking, theft, etc.) which the judicial system is unable to repress. Police officers or private security guards, under the pressure of the population and tradesmen, resort to so-called exemplary sanctions, which range from severe beatings to mutilations, or even to death. In India, children given in payment of debts by their parents to a master and who attempt to escape his exploitation are often returned by the police, despite the absolute interdiction of forced labour. One of these children, whom I met, is handicapped for life because of the punishments inflicted by his master. In both of these cases, the justice incapable of restoring the victim's economic, social and cultural rights and thus contributes to the occurrence of torture. In other cases, it is an active accomplice of the abuses. Those who have seen one or more of these rights violated and who protest and denounce flagrant iniquities may find themselves accused of crimes against the State or its agents and exposed to ill-treatment. This practice of criminalizing social protest occurs in many countries. It often leads to unjust convictions for the victims and to total impunity for the torturers, who falsify the accusation and, what is more, regularly use torture to force the accused to acknowledge erroneous facts.
Can torture really be prevented through greater respect for ESCR?

Two examples, drawn from OMCT interventions, may shed greater light. In the first case, the OMCT was asked, in India, to intervene concerning the abuse suffered by the inhabitants of a village during a demonstration; the event, which the governor had forbidden for public order reasons, was harshly repressed law of enforcement forces, and several people complained of acts of violence committed by the police after their arrest. Because of the installation of an industrial shrimp aquafarm in the community, the ground has undergone significant salinisation, resulting in a drop in local subsistence farming productions. On the advice of an Indian NGO, the villagers challenged the activities of this company in court and got an injunction ordering the production launched without the necessary exploitation permits to be stopped. The company disregarded the court's decision and used all means available under the proceedings, as well as its economic weight, to continue its activities. The wronged peasants then decided to organize a protest movement.
316
317
The chain of events is triggered because the initial violation, which imperilled the village's food self-sufficiency, was not remedied by the authorities. The public authorities passivity lies at the core of the problem, but the local associations were incapable of alerting their foreign partners against the potential risks this conflict entailed. Consequently, they could not mobilize an international solidarity chain which might have forced the authorities to enforce the judgment or, at least, to adopt temporary measures suspending the exploitation. Respect of ESCR is all the more threatened when the power relationship between the parties involved is one-sided and when the State involved has difficulty ensuring the protection of the rights of its population's least privileged sectors. This holds particularly true for mining exploitations on lands belonging to indigenous populations, where transnational societies bring pressure to bear on governments looking to modernize their economy. In this regard, the Marlin gold mine affair in Guatemala is most illustrative. Whereas, under Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the indigenous and tribal peoples affected must be consulted before the exploitation permit is granted, even though they have no veto, the gold mining company signed a contract with the authorities without complying with this obligation. The mining exploitation soon caused some damages to the environment (pollution of a river and the water table, drying of water sources) and habitat (shaking of buildings), as well as health problems; it also generated a resistance movement among the local populations. The conflict not only opposed those responsible for the mine and the local residents, but also the inhabitants between them, since some of them had received profitable jobs in the company. The threats and intimidations against those people who were fighting for the respect of native rights created a climate of fear and defiance. The strong international mobilization managed, among other points, to have the case referred to a court of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which asked the mine be temporarily closed. Faced with the lack of cooperation from the incriminated company and the government, spokespeople for 36 NGOs demanded that the various shareholding European pension funds ensure compliance with the conservatory measure. The affair has since taken on such significance that Guatemalan authorities now follow the case closely. These examples show that the prevention of torture through a better defence of ESCR is not an utopian dream, nor a question of ideology. This mechanism does not replace others, it complements them. On the other hand, it does demand great strictness in its application, as some ESCR may be invoked abusively. A case in point is when, within a traditional community, certain leaders assume the right, allegedly to
maintain the purity of a culture, to impose on members of the younger generation a lifestyle they no longer accept. Finally, the causality links must be studied minutely in each situation, by evaluating the probability that a denial in the ESCR field may really lead to acts of torture or violence.
[1] Law No. 975, called the Justice and Peace Act, sought to put an end to the armed conflict between Colombia's security forces, guerrillas, and paramilitary groups. [2] Massacres, attributable to the Tutsi-controlled Burundian army, were already occurring in 1965, resulting in some 25,000 Hutus casualties. In 1972, following an attempted uprising by the Hutu majority, between 150,000 and 300,000 Hutus were killed by the same military forces. In 1993, after the murder of Melchior Ndadaye, the first Hutu elected as President of Burundi, which occurred three months after his investiture, massacres resulted in the deaths of 300,000 people, mostly Hutus. [3] After the 6 April 1994 assassinations of Juvnal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira, respectively the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, who died in the attempted attack against the Rwandan Presidential plane, Hutu authorities initiated the massacre of between 500,000 and 1 million Tutsis et moderate Hutus.
319
ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF UN MECHANISMS FOR THE PREVENTION OF AND FIGHT AGAINST TORTURE
sylvie bukhari-de pontual, dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Economics
at the Catholic University of Paris (France), attorney at the Bar of Paris, Chairperson of the International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (FIACAT)
Since 11 September 2001, both the war on terrorism and security issues have become priorities for most governments and populations. In the face of these concerns, respect for human rights seems to shift to the background, leading to violations of these rights,1 and allowing the emergence, in the public arena, of a school of thought that seeks to legitimise torture, where the torturer is no longer ashamed of it, where he boasts and even justifies it overtly. Yet, the United Nations had progressively set up legal instruments for the prevention of and fight against this phenomenon. Treaties protecting human rights had been drafted, their implementation entrusted to Committees. Several of these texts contain provisions prohibiting torture and other forms of ill-treatment. For example, the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which was adopted in 1984 and came into effect in 1987, sets out the specific obligations of States parties to prohibit torture. It creates the Committee against Torture* (CAT), a body responsible for overseeing the proper implementation of the text by the States. Likewise, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, which raises the absolute prohibition against torture to the status of non-derogable right, created the Human Rights Committee*, whose mission also consists of monitoring the members compliance with the treaty. Finally, the latest conventional mechanism, the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT),
320
321
which came into effect in 2007, gave birth to the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture* (SPT), which is empowered, on the one hand, to visit all detention centres in the States parties and, on the other hand, to offer its assistance and advice both to States parties and to the National Preventive Mechanisms*. Next to these conventional mechanisms, the Human Rights Council* the United Nations body specialized on this thematic has set up a new system to monitor the States compliance: the Universal Periodic Review* (UPR).2 The Council's predecessor, the Human Rights Commission, had instituted another special mechanism that still exists, the Special Rapporteur* on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. His mission is to conduct fact-finding visits, to convey urgent appeals to the States about people who risk being tortured which allows him to list the violations , to prepare an annual report on the status of torture in the world, and to present recommendations to the States to fight efficiently against the practice of torture.
The creation of the UPR constituted a true revolution.3 This is a procedure which is relatively well accepted by the States, which reinforces its effectiveness. Proof of this are the States increasing involvement, the number of recommendations and the care with which they are drafted, the progressive decrease of self-satisfied speeches (even though the persistence of a logic of regional blocks has quite clearly characterised certain sessions) and the importance of the civil society's involvement. For the past few years, now, the conventional bodies of the United Nations have striven to harmonise their work methods.4 Numerous recommendations have been made to the treaties bodies, to the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and to the States parties. Indeed, each State must produce a periodic report specifying, in detail, the manner in which it abides by and concretely enforces the treaties it has signed and ratified. Since respectively 2007 and 2009, the Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee present a list of questions to the State, to guide it in the preparation of its periodic report and to ensure this report is more precise. This new procedure constitutes an interesting initiative, at first glance, but it must still pass the test of its practical implementation. The first reports of the States parties prepared in accordance with this procedure were examined by the Committee against Torture in November 2010. A complete assessment must be undertaken in 2013, by which time we hope all currently concerned States will have submitted their reports and been the subject of a review.
Some effectiveness in the UN mechanisms for the prevention of and fight against torture
Today, the effectiveness of these mechanisms cannot be questioned. The simple fact of indicating that a violation has been brought to the attention of the United Nations, or that an investigation is being conducted by the UN concerning a specific case, may often be sufficient to put an end to abuses. United Nations experts cannot be deemed solely responsible for the concrete results obtained, but the mechanisms constitute very important means to raise the alert on possible aggravations. An assessment of the effectiveness of these mechanisms relies on a series of essential factors: evolutions in the operation of the UN procedures themselves; an improved cooperation between all these mechanisms; the development of a reflection to extend the concepts allowing for stronger protection of the victims of torture and the increase of the civil society's role.
Synergising mutually reinforcing UN mechanisms

Over the last decade, the various mechanisms for the prevention of and fight against torture have increased their cooperation and complementarity. Thus, the UPR can now help draw greater attention to the recommendations of the conventional bodies and to the reports of the Special Rapporteurs. Some of them have started considering together how best to harmonise their work methods: meetings between conventional Committees, between Committee presidents, annual meeting of Special Procedures* representatives, Special Procedures coordination committee. The goals are to increase the effectiveness and independence of the mechanisms, to facilitate the sharing of information and experiences, to identify issues, and to encourage joint actions on cross-cutting or common-interest issues. The UN mechanisms also release joint statements, such as those of the representatives of certain Special Procedures on 10 December, Human Rights Day, or those concerning an individual case5 or an apparent emergency in a geographical location.6 They also organize common missions, such as the one carried out by seven independent experts on the evolution of the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC),7 or prepare joint studies.8
Methodological evolutions in the operation of UN procedures

Unlike the Human Rights Commission, which depended on the UN Economic and Social Council, the Human Rights Council is directly linked to the General Assembly of the United Nations. Even though its status is still that of a subsidiary body, it has acquired increasing importance. For example, it meets for longer periods and in several sessions, and can thus work over time and in depth. Besides, it does not hesitate to organize special sessions focusing on one country, in cases of emergency, as it recently did for Cte dIvoire and Syria.
322
323
Extending concepts for a wider protection of victims of torture

Both the Committee against Torture and the Special Rapporteur on Torture endeavour to progressively establish very precise norms and rules of interpretation regarding their activities, which lead to a widening of the protection granted to torture victims. Manfred Nowak, Special Rapporteur from 1 December 2004 to 31 October 2010, prepar-ed a report on detention conditions around the world today and seemed to favour extending the definition of torture, leading him to propose a new convention on the rights of prisoners.9 He notes that torture remains a global phenomenon, practiced extensively in many countries, due above all to a poorly functioning administration of justice and, consequently, to the failure to comply with safeguard measures. As did his predecessors, he notes that, in practice, most States parties to the Convention against Torture fail to meet their obligations, which consist among others of penalizing torture, investigating into allegations of torture, prosecuting its authors and providing compensation to its victims. He further notes that, in many countries, detention conditions under police custody, during temporary detention, and in the various detention centres constitute inhuman or degrading treatment. The Argentinian Juan E. Mndez, the current Special Rapporteur, shifts his point of view to focus more specifically on the victim. He favours an approach centred on reparation, including compensation and rehabilitation. In a declaration made on 7 March 2011 on the occasion of the 16th session of the Human Rights Council, he insisted on the victims central role in forcing torturers to be held accountable in court for their actions.10 He stresses the nullity of confessions obtained under duress and the preventive role of this interdiction. As part of the fight against impunity, the CAT has also debated extending universal jurisdiction* and, particularly, the principle Aut dedere aut judicare (either extradite or prosecute), which requires that States extradite, prosecute or deliver to an international jurisdiction the alleged author of a crime found on their territory. Is it necessary, specifically, that the guilty party be present in the territory of a country to be judged?
analyses and essential information on the human rights situation in many countries. They draw international community's attention to issues granted insufficient consideration in its agenda. The fact that a particular situation continues to be examined by the international community tells the victims their fate has not been forgotten, and gives them a chance to have their complaints heard. The authors of human rights violations know they are being monitored. The State authorities involved are conscious that the evaluation of their human rights record will have political, humanitarian, and developmental consequences. It can force them to be accountable and to try harder to improve the situation in this area.
And yet a limited effectiveness

Despite the progress we have highlighted, the impact of UN mechanisms against torture must not be overestimated. Their results11 concretely, the lives directly saved or the improvement of detention conditions are not easily quantifiable. Furthermore, their influence remains limited, because they actually concern but a very small number of people.
Limitations inherent to the UN mechanisms

The limitations of the UN mechanisms for the fight against torture are often inherent to their very nature. Thus, not all States are parties to the various treaties, which are currently applicable only to some countries. The mechanisms draw up recommendations which entail obligations that are essentially moral and political in nature, albeit they are not entirely without legally binding effect (soft law). However, as these are not real jurisdictional bodies, they have no power of enforcement against States. Furthermore, the abundance of mechanisms does not necessarily entail greater protection. Depending on their nature, they can sometimes produce contradictory findings. For example, whereas seven Special Rapporteurs independent experts noted the lack of any positive evolution in the DRC since 200812, the Human Rights Council did not deem it necessary to reinstate a mandate for an independent expert for this country.13 In fact, this is an intergovernmental body within which political interests are called into play according to the issue or State under consideration. Besides, the primary role of most UN mechanisms fighting against torture is not a preventive one, even though they all include a preventive aspect. That is particularly true of the conventional Committees when they take conservatory measures or of the Special Rapporteur on Torture when he alerts the States. It is especially true of the SPT, the preventive body par excellence.
The crucial role of NGOs

Without the outside perspective NGOs bring, without their constant pressures, States would be little moved to abide by their international commitments and implement the recommendations prepared by torture prevention mechanisms. International associations for the defence of human rights stood at the forefront of the mobilization activities to create the Special Procedures. In their reports, they provide useful
324
325
Some bodies, bound to the principle of confidentiality like the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, must also respect the decision of some States to keep investigation reports secret. However, if one considers the case of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture* (CPT), which originally stood in the same situation, one can see how the promotion of its work, particularly by NGOs, has allowed it to increase its influence. Thus, States felt bound to publish its investigation reports and take its opinions and recommendations into greater consideration. One can hope the same will happen with the SPT. Finally, budgetary constraints impose substantial limitations on the work of the mechanisms, which lack sufficient means. In some cases, one can affirm that certain States, the interests of which might be threatened by the reports of UN bodies, do not pay their financial contribution to the UN.
Too often, mandated experts like the Special Rapporteur on Torture, who should be able to enter countries to conduct a fact-finding mission, find they are still being refused access to the territory. For example, as of 31 December 2010, only 78 States had granted the Special Procedures permanent visiting authorisations.15 One last but no least important observation: all mechanisms mentioned do not apply to non-State players, particularly to those that aspire to seize power and enter into direct conflict with the States (guerrilla fighters, resistance movements, armed militias, paramilitary units, etc.), which, again, restricts their effectiveness.
Challenges to be met
In this context, the challenges to be met are considerable and condition the effectiveness of the mechanisms for the prevention of torture. The first issue is to continue improving the operation of these bodies. In fact, NGOs have already formulated quite a few suggestions. But the effectiveness of the international system for the prevention of torture essentially rests on its ability to force the States to meet their basic obligations by complying with the texts and submitting their periodic reports on time and to implement its findings and recommendations. The effectiveness of these mechanisms therefore depends on their ability to verify the compliance with the obligations they prescribe. Actually, what is at stake here is the justiciability of their recommendations, i.e. the way they can force the States to apply them by transposing them into their legislative systems and putting them into practice. In other words, the greatest problem is the lack of true enforcement measures. These would allow, on the one hand, the UN mechanisms to make the application of their decisions obligatory and, on the other hand, to monitor the implementation procedures accurately, by granting them the ability to verify each successive stage.16 Therefore, the implementation of a monitoring mechanism is a pledge of the recommendations effectiveness and also plays a preventive role. It should be seen as a process meant to assist the States in the efforts they must make, on the basis of the recommendations sent to them. Here, the role of the civil society is a fundamental one, and we know that national associations, including the various ACAT, and international NGOs like the FIACAT, can have an impact on States. It is the civil society which must bear the main burden of preserving liberties. All non-governmental organizations constitute the main monitoring surveillance and resistance vectors. There have the immense merit of letting nothing slip by. Because there lies the key to vigilance. Turning a blind eye to the torture practiced in Myanmar or Somalia
Limitations derived from the lack of political will of the States

The lack of political will of States that set the protection of public order above the protection of human rights is probably the greatest hindrance to the effectiveness of those UN mechanisms fighting against torture. Thus, a certain number of States parties violate the provisions of the Convention against Torture and refuse to implement the recommendations of the UN mechanisms.14 Likewise, the Human Rights Council can display a distinct lack of reactivity towards urgent or systematic human rights violations and look as if it were selecting the situations to be examined. The fact that the State, which is the subject of a UPR, is given the possibility of rejecting the recommendations of the working group tasked with this review especially should they not accord with the reality of the country or its national laws is of much concern. Considering the significant latitude granted States in selecting which recommendations they accept, the Universal Periodic Review might not be the most effective mechanism to improve human rights in those countries which violated them massively. Too often, States lay greater emphasis in applying a treaty's letter than its spirit. National reports merely compile the legislation in effect, but show little concern for their effective enforcement by the public authorities and the courts. Objectivity is often lacking in these reports, while self-righteousness is all too frequent. There is hardly any impartiality: many countries, in an effort to be of mutual service, jointly cover each other and do not hesitate to use their allocated speaking time to sing the praises of the allied State. The States often consult the NGOs far too late to give them the time to exert any real influence on the contents of the national report; sometimes, they do not even resort to them.
326
327
means encouraging it wherever else it may occur. Not to denounce Guantanamo is tantamount to permitting the opening of other torture centres anywhere else.17 It goes without saying that this mechanism can only function if several conditions are met. The recommendations formulated by the UN mechanisms must be clear, precise, void of any ambiguity, assessable, and action-oriented. The State under review has the obligation of taking these recommendations into consideration. The UN mechanisms must have the ability to monitor their implementation, if they are to be able to assess the impact and effectiveness of the recommended measures when they conduct a new review. It is by the quality of this follow-up that the real interest and in-the-field effectiveness of their work can be assessed. For the States, the challenge the future brings is to develop a complementary national plan to implement the recommendations of the UN bodies. This plan should fully include the civil society: NGOs, naturally, but also other players, particularly national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights whose role, in this field, is to advise and offer propositions to governments, and who perform their mission independently and in compliance with the Paris Principles.18 Similarly, the role of public opinion should be taken into consideration. Indeed, human rights, which include the absolute prohibition against torture, can only be achieved if peoples incessantly demand their protection. And for every human being to assume and defend these rights they must be informed and trained; in other words, they must be made aware of them. Therein lies the fundamental stake of education of human rights, which implies that these rights are taught, that the fundamental texts that States them are known, and that the values that underlie them and the behaviours they generate are transmitted. In the end, the possibility of saving lives or not is not the sole measure of the effectiveness of the UN mechanisms for the prevention of and fight against torture; as important is the effective implementation of a framework of goal-oriented actions to fight against torture and limit its practice as much as possible. Therefore, the crucial stake resides more in the in-depth transformation of mindsets, an objective to which these bodies can contribute to in the fight against this absolute evil that is torture. Indeed, in the words of Judge Serge Portelli, Deputy Presiding Judge of the High Court of Paris, torture has always existed, and it will always exist. What can change is society's resistance, the instruments with which it endows itself to fight it and have it retreat, instruments which must be effective since the offenders are the States themselves, instruments which must contribute to enforce the prohibition against torture, because torture is one of the absolutes and interdictions which define and shape Man.19
[1] For example: arbitrary detentions without trials, or extended indefinitely without indictments; discriminatory laws regarding foreigners, particularly the refusal to grant the right of asylum to those coming from certain countries, their return to countries where they risk torture, or their transfer to countries where they may be tortured without difficulty (extraordinary renditions*, diplomatic assurances*, secret CIA flights); resort to capital punishment; sterner confinement conditions; attacks on the respect of privacy; criminalization of social movements (whether these be political, union, environmentalist or alterglobalist in nature), allowing the authorities to brand those who oppose the current regime as terrorists. [2] See Resolution 60/251 of the General Assembly of the United Nations dated 3 April 2006 (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/ bodies/hrcouncil/docs/a.res.60.251_en.pdf) and Resolution 5/1 of the Human Rights Council of 18 June 2007 (ap.ohchr.org/ documents/F/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_5_1.doc). [3] FIACAT, Universal Periodic Review An ambivalent exercise, January 2010, 44 pages, http://www.fiacat.org/IMG/pdf/ FIACAT_Rapport_UPR_2010_VA_VF.pdf; To strengthen the Universal periodic review: FIACAT's recommendations, October 2010, http://www.fiacat.org/IMG/pdf/FIACAT_-_HRC_Review-_UPR_assessement.pdf; and Un renforcement de lEPU dans le cadre de la rvision du Conseil des droits de lhomme? [Strengthening the EPU as part of the review of the Human Rights Council?], June 2011, http://www.fiacat.org/un-backing-of-l-epudans-the-setting-of-the-revision-of-advice-some-rights-of-l-man1869. [4] On 28 June 2010, 20 ONGs, including the FIACAT, presented a common response to the Dublin Declaration: Joint NGO submission to the 11th Inter-Committee Meeting, www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/icm-mc/.../NGO_submission_ICM11.doc. [5] For example, the Special Rapporteurs on Torture and on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions called on the United States to cancel the execution of Mexican national Humberto Leal Garca, which finally took place on 7 July 2011. [6] For example, on 31 December 2010, six persons holding a Special Procedures mandate released a common declaration voicing their concerns about human rights violations in Cte dIvoire: Cte dIvoire: UN experts deeply concerned with gross human rights violations which may amount to crimes against humanity, http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/%28httpNewsByYe ar_en%29/22E086BD530FBC78C125780E0040B9DE?OpenDocument. [7] United Nations, Council of Human Rights, Second Joint Report of Seven United Nations Experts on the Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, A/HRC/13/63, 8 March 2010, 26 pages, http://www2.ohchr.org/English/bodies/hrcouncil/ docs/13session/A-HRC-13-63.pdf. [8] See, for example: United Nations, Human Rights Council, Joint study on global practices in relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism of the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin; the special rapporteur on torture and other cruel,inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak; the working group on arbitrary detention represented by its vice-chair, Shaheen Sardar Ali; and the working group on enforced or involuntary disappearances represented by its chair, Jeremy Sarkin, A/HRC/13/42, 19 February 2010, 165 pages, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/A.HRC.13.42_fr.pdf. [9] United Nations, Human Rights Council, 13th session, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, Addendum Study one the phenomena of tortures, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the world, including an year of conditions of detention, A/HRC/13/39/Add.5, 5 February 2010, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A.HRC.13.39. [10] United Nations, Human Rights Council, 16th session, Le Conseil examine le rapport sur la torture [The Council examines the report on torture], 7 March 2011, http://www.aidh.org/ONU_GE/conseilddh/11/16_rapp_tort.htm. [11] This observation also applies when measuring the impact of NGOs actions. [12] United Nations, Human Rights Council, Second joint report of seven United Nations experts on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, A/HRC/13/63, 8 March 2010, 27 pages, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/ A-HRC-13-63.pdf, and Third joint report of seven United Nations experts on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, A/ HRC/16/68, 9 March 2011, 8 pages, http://daccess-dds-ny.one.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/116/57/PDF/G1111657.pdf?OpenElement. [13] United Nations, Human Rights Council, The human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the strengthening of technical cooperation and advisory services, 21 March 2011, A/HRC/16/L.36, http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/ HRC/d_res_dec/A_HRC_16_L.36.pdf. [14] For example, such is the case with France, which has not complied with certain decisions of the CAT in the following cases: Mafhoud Brada Vs France, Communication No. 195/2002, 17 May 2005, http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/%28Symbol%29/ PRESSES.C.34.D.195.2002.Fr?Opendocument; Adel Tebourski Vs France, Communication No. 300/2006, 1 May 2007, http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/ec6b60df37442e91c12572f0004f4a4c?Opendocument; and Djamel Ktiti Vs France, Communication No. 419/2010, 5 July 2011, http://www.bayefsky.com/pdf/morocco_t5_cat_419_2010_fr.pdf. Such is also the case of Kazakhstan which, on 28 June 2011, by sending Uzbeks back to their country, where they would certainly risk being tortured, violated the emergency measures taken by the CAT. Thrice, including on the very day of the expulsion, the Committee had requested of the Kazakh authorities that they not extradite these people before the United Nations had reviewed their complaint. [15] United Nations, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations Special Procedures: Facts and Figures 2010, April 2011, 30 pages, p. 30, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/docs/Facts_Figures2010.pdf. [16] As occurs, for example, for the implementation of the European Court of Human Rights decisions, which are, strictly speaking, court decisions, contrary to the recommendations presented by the various UN bodies involved in the fight against torture.
328
[17] PORTELLI, Serge. Pourquoi la torture ? [Why torture?], Paris, ditions Vrin, February 2011, 312 pages, p. 289. [18] The Paris Principles comprise a set of recommendations on the role, composition, status and functions of national institutions supervising human rights. These principles were approved by the United Nations Human Rights Commission and were then adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. Resolution A/RES/48/134, 20 December, 1993, http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca. nsf/%28Symbol%29/A.RES.48.134.Fr?OpenDocument. [19] Op. cit.
331
THINKING AND ACTING AGAINST TORTURE

olivier abel, Professor of Ethical Philosophy at the Faculty of Protestant Theology in Paris
(France)
[...] And all My bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It has melted within Me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And My tongue clings to My jaws []
Psalm 22.
There are moments when we must step back from our actions, and take the time to reflect upon what we are doing or what we are opposing to. But is torture something that can be reflected upon? Critical thought cannot be separated from emotion, indignation and compassion. Yet these reactions are not timeless; they are part and parcel of a history, a fabric of traditions and discoveries which, while they responded to vitally important and real questions, raised other issues at the same time. I will draw here on certain elements belonging to the advances made by Christianity and its tradition, and will attempt to indicate in what areas theological changes introduced by Christianity have affected torture. By way of introduction, I should also like to signal the difficulty that lies in speaking of Christian thought today. Indeed, who can boast of having a Christian thought? There are some who label themselves as Christians, yet do not seem to harbour the least Christian thought, as if the Gospel changed nothing in the manner in which they live and think; others, meanwhile, do not consider themselves to be Christians, yet their discourse is implicitly or explicitly anchored in the biblical, evangelical or Christian tradition. Furthermore, Christianity is the heir to a history and geography of such magnitude, such complexity and such diversity as would deter any attempt at simplification. The various arguments I will draw upon in the following reflections
332
333
are just some contributions among others, and it is not my purpose to disentangle those which are Christian and those which are not. Revolt against torture has always arisen, defined and redefined itself in various different circumstances, and it does not exist out of context. Revolt must be constantly translated into speech, thought and action. Such retranslation is important, and there is a need for new attempts of this kind. Progress can never be guaranteed. I should now like to raise some possible issues.
The issue of the image and likeness of God

One might first go back to the central biblical theme which causes our unease and resistance at the thought of striking the human visage: the notion that each person is created in God's image and likeness. This theme appears, for example, in the famous episode of whether taxes are owed to Caesar. Asked by the Pharisees whether or not such a tribute is to be paid, Jesus asks whose likeness appears on the coinage, before answering that one must render unto Caesar and God their respective dues.1 Jesus thereby makes the image of God into an innovative critical concept. While human beings are made in the image of God, there is a basic biblical injunction against constructing an image of God, and therefore of human beings as well. The space left open by this injunction must be defended against those who claim to know what human beings are, and then eliminate everything that lies beyond their vision. In this sense, I am not quite convinced by the argument which holds that the sacralisation of humanity, following on the heels of the desacralisation of God, led the way in the fight against torture. In many ways, and particularly in the reflection of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), God's death announces the death of humanity. It is precisely in the name of a certain perception of humankind that human beings have been materialized and treated as beasts to the slaughter. In order to measure human responsibility, which is to say human fragility as well, one must therefore consider the finiteness of human beings, following the example of the thinkers of that evangelical renaissance, the Reformation. One might also ponder a related issue, that of the incarnation: the notion that God became human, that God assumed a body. Christian history as a whole reveals a real passion for the body and its representation. From Romanesque art to Rembrandt, and not forgetting Van Gogh's paintings of simple pairs of shoes, artists have never given up seeking the face, the quest to depict the face of the one who died for them. At the same time, the Passion must never be allowed to become the one tree hiding a forest of human suffering, the suffering inflicted by human beings upon each another. As it
is written, [] when did we see You hungry and feed You [] inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.2 The practical purpose of the parables, such as the parable of the Good Samaritan,3 is guided by a higher Christological purpose: the praxis of being a neighbour, of drawing near,4 whereby it is forbidden to seek to know the status, creed or ethnic group of the person with whom we are dealing, and thus to adjust our action accordingly. Neighbourly praxis occurs at an incognito level, at the level of that anonymous and unrepresentable face now drawn near. It is always after the event that recognition occurs. Who is my neighbour?, Jesus is asked. What is amazing is that Jesus answers a question with another question, but one which has been inverted by the corrective virtues of the narrative: which of these men behaved like a neighbour5 to the one who fell among thieves? I believe it is this deep and mysterious likeness shared by all human beings, and shared between human beings and God, which torture seeks to negate through violence and humiliation, until it destroys all self-respect, compelling the tortured person to call down upon himself that worst of all curses: Better never to have been born.
The question of democracy

One might also consider the disquieting situation of democracies today. To reflect upon torture is to reflect upon the State and, more generally, upon the political and institutional regime harboured by a State which, whether at home or abroad, practices or allows torture, always in the name of a greater good. I am not speaking here of despotic or totalitarian torture States, but of any State that persecutes its own or foreign subjects, hostages or prisoners; in other words, human beings deprived of any counter-vailing power. This argument applies, then, to any institution that inflicts humiliation, especially in those cases where there is a confusion of rules and genres between warfare and policing. Paul Ricur writes that power should not be exercised in such a fashion as would leave the other without any counter-vailing power. The opportunity for violence, if not the resort to violence, resides in the power exercised by one will over another. [...] Mapped on to the initial dissymmetry between that which one person does and that which is done to another, i.e. that which the other person suffers, power-over may be taken as the perfect opportunity for the evil of violence. It is easy to point out the slippery slope leading from influence, a mild form of powerover, to torture, an extreme form of abuse. [] Under these various guises, violence is equivalent to the reduction or destruction of the other's power-to. Yet that is not
334
335
the worst of it: in torture, that which the torturer seeks out and alas! sometimes manages to destroy is his victim's self-esteem.6 When that point is reached, when the very institutions devised to offer protection including the victorious army that has conquered by destroying its rivals are now those that assault and humiliate, then nothing solid remains. All that is left is the descent into barbarism, and this soon becomes routine. This is why centres of vigilance like ACAT play a crucial role, and why the most democratic regimes will sometimes seek to smash the thermometer rather than assess the patient's condition. Thus, the practice of torture in Iraq was shocking because of the contradiction between the stated democratic objectives and the means employed. Far from being marginal, and notwithstanding statements made by former US President George W. Bush, these blunders bear witness to something truly systemic. You cannot give soldiers the order to break a few suspects without getting them to hate those whom they are harming. Thereafter, the peacemaking mission is compromised because, even more than the violence, the humiliations inflicted foretell of future wars. What is so worrying is the capacity of democratic systems to conduct such pitiless wars, and their inability to eliminate their sinister elements. Our democracies appear to us to be well-meaning and protective, but we cannot help feeling they often preside over a sort of dual administration, being merciless to those seeking to penetrate them from the outside: just recall those overloaded refugee boats left to sink off our shores. It is frightening to realise that the progress made in the soft democratic methods employed within a State, goes hand in hand with those methods applied externally with such terrifying brutality. The crucial experience of democracy, the one by which a democratic regime is defined, lies in its refusal to pay any price in order to save the life of its own, by cheapening the lives of others, failing even to dignify them with the kind of treatment we would mete out upon our enemies. Consider how Hector, that enemy par excellence, is depicted in Greek epic. Let us ask ourselves that famous question: What would we do if we learned that, in order to save humankind, there was one innocent human being somewhere whom we had to subject to torture? And therein lies the entire paradox of democracy, a regime which must think about self-defence (and so about war, the police and violence), but which refuses to justify this in the name of some sacrificial principle. Here we face a true malaise which typifies the Christian political regime, the Christian way of doing politics, criticized from the days of Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) to Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) because of its instability, its difficulty in justifying the inevitable and necessary use of violence. And yet, this very political fragility seems to me to be precious.
The twin roots of torture

I have decided to focus on two types of torture, describing their origins and their respective functions, before trying to show how certain expressions of Christian thought but also of classical humanism as well have tackled and opposed them. This archaeology of torture should make it possible to identify its various forms and practices, and the framework of its legitimisation, if not of its legitimacy. For one cannot effectively criticize what one fails to understand at all. This is also an archaeology of cruelty and indifference to the suffering of others. Referring back to Hesiod's version of the myth of the successive ages of mankind, does Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) not state that the history of humankind is coextensive, not with the golden age, but the iron age? The iron age of torture oscillates between two modes of justification, which I take to mark its limits. Drawing on distinctions previously acknowledged by others, I differentiate between punitive torture, which seeks to terrorise and intimidate, to silence and repress, and inquisitional torture, the aim of which is to force a person to speak up and confess, even to convert. The first of these indicates the inability of Christian societies to emerge from their former background in penal societies, which justifies pain as a form of punishment. The second is perhaps the perverse discovery of a monotheistic faith, which is no longer satisfied at being able to reach a person from the outside, but seeks to get at the inner person, at the core of his or her very spirituality. Punitive torture is perhaps the most archaic form of torture; its ancient and brutal heart is now wrapped in layers of rationalisation, but it was the foundation of our political and legal, as well as our moral and religious regimes. This is how Friedrich Nietzsche analyzes the educative function of corporal forms of punishment: How do you manufacture memory in the human animal? How do you imprint something upon a mind that is half-stunted, half-idiotic, riveted to the moment, upon this embodied capacity to forget, in such a way that it will remain present? As one can well imagine, it was precisely not through mild ways and means that this problem was resolved. Indeed, there is perhaps even nothing so terrible or troubling in the entire prehistory of man than his mnemonic technique. [] When man deemed it necessary to create a memory for himself, this could never have happened without bloodshed, martyrdom and sacrifice. [] The worse mankind's memory has been, the more terrible the appearance of its customs.7 Torture here is not interested in the tormented and tortured subject, nor even in the potential victim of the crime for which he is said to be being punished: it seeks to bring back and preserve over time a social and cosmic order which is preferable to chaos. In this sense, it is a form of torture that seeks to frighten and intimidate, even in its most extreme forms to terrorize. Punitive torture makes it possible to influence the course of the future,
336
337
reducing human unpredictability. It silences all protest and resistance and forces the person into hiding, into bottling up and keeping secret. It proliferates in the shadows of despotic societies. The second kind of torture, practiced for example in the Inquisition but still employed today, tries to establish truth and transparency, to extract what is secret and uncover what is kept hidden. The point is not only to draw from a subject his hidden truth, but also to force him to admit this truth to the very bottom of his heart. Without taking the analysis this far, it is impossible to understand the confession of Stalinist interrogations. This method of producing the truth, as Michel Foucault (1926-1984) put it, aims at exacting an external relation to what happens to be the truth, as well as a sort of confession, a total personal conversion. Paradoxically, this is not very far from what is sought by unrequited love turned violent: coercion of the beloved's desire! It would not be difficult to provide numerous examples, from the Albigensian Inquisition to Maoism. There is something fanatical in this wish to force a confession. Paul Ricur speaks of love as the relation between one will and another, when there is no more imitation, command, solidarity, emotional merger or social cohesion, but merely an intimate creation from within. [] The other truly becomes you when he is not the motive or obstacle to my decisions, but births me from the very core of my decision, and inspires me from the heart of my freedom.8 This is what punitive torture aspires to do: to coerce the other from the inside. This too is typical of totalitarian regimes.
restore a shattered unity. The result of this is that we come to prefer a view that takes suffering to be the punishment or consequence of a crime or criminal fault, rather than accept its absurdity. And Paul Ricur points out that judicial progress has not been waging a war against religion as such, so much as against debased and corrupted Christian ideas, against an ancient and not especially Christian, maybe even an antichristian religious background, a religion of vengeance and atonement which is not Christianity. According to Ricur, within this archaic religious perspective, the magistrate truly is the minister of divine vengeance. It is this theology of wrath that the law has continuously sought to repress; the struggle against the theology of vengeance is absolutely contemporaneous with the law. Some ethnologists even consider that the law was born out of a reaction against the idea of vengeance, to ward off the vengeance of the gods rather than to execute it, to be free from this sort of divine outburst. From the time of Job up to the philosopher Ren Girard, via the message of Jesus in the Gospels and of Paul in his Epistles, the Christian logic has been lodged in the rejection of this penal vision of suffering, as punishment intrinsically necessary for world order. This is precisely the point of justification by grace. Thus, in societies inspired by the Bible, we find a veritable theological rejection of forms of corporal punishment. An interesting case is that of John Calvin (15091564), who could hardly be accused of having an overly optimistic anthropology. He knows how unhappy and nasty human beings can be: Any region would soon be torn apart by murder and theft did it not inflict horrible torments upon those who commit murder. Some periods of history call for an increase in such punishments.10 But he has a preference for more lenient means of ensuring order, founded on straightforward respect for laws; and he opposes practices which were current in his day, particularly the corporal punishment of children. That is because John Calvin did not believe theologically in a penal order. Christian freedom no longer needs the representations of puerile rewards or punishments, and the legal reform contained within the Geneva ordinances he drew up proposes a penal regime which abolishes the great spectacles of public punishment and shortens the duration of executions employed as civil penalties for crimes, thefts and threats to public order.11 Those who disagreed were asked to leave. As for the Quakers, they deem it pointless to repay one evil with another, and view prison as having a redemptive mission. Its purpose is no longer to punish, but to improve and rehabilitate those found guilty. To grant a second chance to the criminal in this way was an extraordinary legal innovation at the time, even if today we have come to see that prison causes more problems than it solves.
Christian resistance to the logic of punishment

I have no intention whatever of covering up the historical fact that, in the age of Christendom, Christianity provided justifications for every form of torture devised and practiced across the entire spectrum from punishment to confession. But I am interested in the theological, evangelical and biblical motives that were able to lead to a refutation of these justifications. In terms penal of justice, Paul Ricur correctly identifies how the meaning of punishment is aporetic: what is most rational about punishment, i.e. that it fits the crime, is at the same time what is most irrational about it, namely that it erases it.9 As if the pain inflicted could magically cause to disappear a suffering that has already been endured. This ambiguity is reflected in the French word peine, which simultaneously designates the grief and pain inflicted, the punishment, and the very act of causing suffering. Within a penal understanding of the world, in which all suffering finally finds its place within a universal retribution, penal justice seeks to
338
339
Christian resistance to the logic of confession

As regards confessions obtained under duress, judges throughout the Middle Ages and during the Ancien Rgime widely employed judicial torture, or putting someone to the question, in order to extract from the accused forced confessions and information concerning possible accomplice(s), where it remained impossible to gather enough evidence to establish the truth. This practice made it possible to arrive at some form of certainty, and illustrates both the importance of confessions in the Ancien Rgime's legal system and, once again, the religious and theological heart of the problem. In the writings of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) and Pierre Bayle (1647-1706), we find a philosophical struggle to render torture anachronistic, pointless and grotesque. Montaigne writes in regard to methods of torture: What they conceal, when a man succeeds in enduring them, is both the truth and those who cannot do so.12 On the other hand, in his comments on a remark made by the Italian jurist Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794), stating that The torment of the guilty frightens other men and turns them from crime, which is the sole purpose of punishments, Dennis Diderot (1713 -1784) has no qualms about justifying torture as follows: Consider that a few moments of torment for a (hardened) scoundrel can save the life of a hundred innocents whom his accomplices are intent upon slaughtering, and (then) the act will seem quite human to you.13 What interests me more, however, is Pierre Bayle's critique of torture. Before bringing down theodicy, i.e. the defence of God in the face of suffering, he tries to demolish the argument used by that combination of violence and lies, that monster which is half-Dragon, half-Priest, referred to as the converter.14 Among all the arguments offered by Bayle against forced confessions, such as the fact that persecutions strengthen heretics in their opinions, his core objection is a theological one. The obligation to believe is an absurdity, for to force the hand to sign is not the same as to force the conscience to agree: persons would sooner sweat in snow, they would sooner press wine and oil from their flesh and bones than press their soul into agreeing with something.15 For it is not up to us whether a statement appears to us to be true. Forcing someone to assent to a belief is even more absurd than punishing people who do not have blue eyes, or who dislike such and such a sauce;16 more ridiculous even than if Pope Hadrian VI had tried to force subjects in his States to enjoy eating hake. Confession is of the same nature as predestination: it is God's prerogative. And far from the mighty and the clergy being able to lay their hands upon it, it even lies beyond the grasp of the subject himself. Torture is powerless in the face of these rights of the conscience discerned by faith, for faith is akin to love, in that it can neither be commanded nor forced.
As we can see then, the rejection of torture has been ascertained in numerous different ways, and through repeated efforts. We started by saying that progress can never be guaranteed. It falls upon us both to defend this fragile legacy, and to reinvent it in new and uncharted circumstances.
[1] Gospel according to Matthew, 22:21. [2] Idem, 25:37 and 25:40. [3] As Paul Ricur notes in his Histoire et vrit [History and Truth] (Paris, ditions du Seuil, 1964, 333 pages), p. 113-127. [4] The connection which can be made in French between proche (near) and le prochain (neighbour) is lost in modern English [Translator's note]. [5] RICUR, Paul, op. cit., p. 114. [6] RICUR, Paul. Soi-mme comme un autre [Oneself as Another] Paris, ditions du Seuil, 1990, 424 pages, p. 256. [7] NIETZSCHE, Friedrich, On the Genealogy of Morals, 1887, Second dissertation, Chapter 3. [8] RICUR, Paul. Le volontaire et linvolontaire [The Voluntary and the Involuntary] in Philosophie de la volont [The Philosophy of the Will], Book 1, Paris, ditions, 1950, p. 34. [9] RICUR, Paul. Le conflit des interpretations [The Conflict of Interpretations], Paris, ditions du Seuil, 1969, 500 pages, p. 352. [10] CALVIN John. Institution de la religion chrtienne [The Institutes of the Christian Religion], 1541 edition, Chapter 16. [11] Contrary to popular belief, there were no religiously motivated condemnations in Geneva, except in the case of Servetus, which was above all the result of a conflict between rival factions. [12] MONTAIGNE de, Michel. De la conscience [On conscience], in Essais, Book II, Chapter V, Posthumous edition, Paris, 1595. [13] DIDEROT, Denis. Des dlits et des peines [On Crimes and Punishments], in Miscellanea philosophiques, Garnier, 1875-1877, pp. 51-69. [14] BAYLE, Pierre. Commentaire philosophique sur ces paroles de Jsus-Christ : Contrains-les dentrer [A Philosophical Commentary on these words of Jesus Christ: Compel them to enter] in uvres diverses, Book II, Second Posthumous Edition, La Haye, 1737, p. 358. [15] Id., p. 385b. [16] Id., p. 375a et 384a.
341
Afterword
A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . AFTERWORD
343
Despite torture, the necessary distinction of political regimes

michel terestchenko , philosopher, author of the essay Du bon usage de la torture,
ou comment les dmocraties justifient linjustifiable [On the proper use of torture, or How democracies justify the unjustifiable]*
Wikileaks 2011 online disclosure of an enormous amount of documents kept secret till then by the various States involved was the opportunity for an intense debate on the virtues or, on the contrary, the perverse effects of the principle of transparency in democracy. Must it or must it not be delimited, restricted? In the field of politics, must some information be taken out of the public eye, of public scrutiny, in the name of the highest interest of the State? Still, there is one issue where no such controversy should have the least reason to exist, and that is the issue of torture. Because, in this case, the point is to know as much as possible, and then to tell all. On the basis of this unconditional transparency, it is possible to conceive a new typology of political regimes. The fundamental difference, one sometimes hears, is not so much between States that use torture almost institutionally and those that forbid this practice in all its forms, since the latter are not exempt from serious breaches of the rules that protect the rights of individuals and human dignity, as enshrined in international humanitarian law. This argument is fair, so long as one adds that this difference matters and should not be minimized, for at least two main reasons. First, because, despite everything, the generalized, almost routine or, on the contrary, limited nature of the resort to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment creates an essential distinction between States. It is true that democratic societies remain vulnerable to these methods, particularly under certain specific
344
AFTERWORD . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT
A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . AFTERWORD
historical circumstances. This was the case in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, as part of the War on Terror, with all the abuses committed in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in Guantanamo, abuses which are now well-documented. It is also undisputable that these same democratic societies do not hesitate to send refugees back to countries where they risk being tortured, and provide, for many of them, detention conditions in their penal institutions that often constitute, at best, ill-treatment and, at worst, torture. These grave violations of human rights, these compromises with the use of torture, must be denounced in the strongest terms. However, applied indiscriminately, the criteria of torture may somehow blur the borders between liberal democracies and authoritarian or dictatorial regimes. Yet such a consequence must be handled with great care. One cannot make a straight comparison between Syria and the United Kingdom, to give the example of two countries reviewed in this report. Otherwise, what would be the point of the revolutionary liberation movements we have seen in several countries of the Arab world since the start of the year 2011? This way of putting radically opposite political regimes on an equal footing is, we know, an argument frequently raised by opponents to democracy, and it serves them as a convenient justification for the practice of torture. Why should not we, when they do the same? An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. And the argument works both ways. Everybody can use it with the same unconcern! As a result, regimes founded on the respect for fundamental human rights should be beyond reproach and temptation to violate them. This is true and should be an unconditionally respected principle of government. Such is not the case. But no matter! Let us not draw from this observation hasty conclusion of the Everything stinks or Anything goes! type. The second reason not to blur the difference between political regimes is that in a democracy, the public officials who engage in the practice of torture or in acts related to it do not, in theory, enjoy the total impunity authoritarian or dictatorial governments grant torturers. They are exposed to criminal prosecutions and judicial convictions, even though it is important to condemn the attempts by those responsible for torturers sometimes at the highest level of the State to circumvent the law or simply change it to avoid such spillover effects. For example, in the name of the defence secrecy, reason of State and necessities of the fight against terrorism, U.S. or U.K. authorities have proven reluctant to prosecute individuals accused of acts of torture, and when they do prosecute, they never go up the chain of command: both George Bush and Dick Cheney have not yet faced legal proceedings. Likewise, in France, the massive recourse to torture during the Algerian War resulted in no conviction of a soldier or political leader. What constitutes the essence of democratic
regimes, however, is not only the fact that they are based on the principle of the protection of fundamental civic liberties, but also that the authorities must, in theory, be under some permanent control, whether of institutions independent of the executive branch, such as the judiciary or the legislative branch (for example, through independent parliamentary commissions), or of the citizens themselves, associations and the media. Democracy is the only regime that fosters the paradoxical principle of self-criticism or, as Polish philosopher Leslek Kolakowski puts it, of self-denial. In no oppressive, dictatorial or authoritarian country a report such as the one you have just consulted could be published and read by all citizens. Although liberal democracies do not entirely refrain from practicing torture or ill-treatment and this is both odious and unacceptable! , the possibility remains, and a colossal freedom this is, to criticize such acts, to bring them out into full light of day, to require that responsibilities be established publicly and that subsequently sentences fitting the crimes be imposed, even though, in practice, these demands will not be fully satisfactory. ACAT-France's 2011 report on torture does not lead to place, in some dangerous equivalency, each and every political regime on the same level. What it shows, ultimately, is that the situation calls for, in one case, much-needed and constant vigilance, based on the access to information, the rejection of secrecy and the right to transparency and, in the other case, the pure and simple need to remove the regime in force. The most efficient way to suppress the atrocious practice of torture is, always and everywhere, to denounce it. Hence the immense value and usefulness of a work such as this one. And it is a sign that, despite the moral fragility of our regimes, democratic societies remain driven by a powerful vitality, one which seeks to create a better world, both here and elsewhere. * TERESTCHENKO, Michel. Paris, ditions La Dcouverte, 2008, 215 pages.
349
Appendices
Ratification status of treaties concerning torture Lexicon Methodology note Acknowledgments and list of contributors Learn about ACAT
Appendices
Ratification status of treaties concerning torture Lexicon Methodology note Acknowledgments and list of contributors Learn about ACAT
Ratification status of treaties concerning torture
as of 18 november 2011
The State is a party to the treaty by ratification, membership or succession /
The State has only signed the treaty / Not applicable (regional treaty)
1950 EUROPEAN CONVENTION
on Human Rights for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. on Human Rights
COUNTRY
1984 CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE 2002 OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE (OPCAT) 1966 INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS (ICCPR)

2006 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS FROM ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE
1951 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES
1998 ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 1987 EUROPEAN CONVENTION 1969 AMERICAN CONVENTION
1985 INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION

to Prevent and Punish Torture
1981 AFRICAN CHARTER

on Human and Peoples Rights
Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)

Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso
Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Republic chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia
on Human Rights for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. on Human Rights to Prevent and Punish Torture
COUNTRY
1984 CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE 2002 OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE (OPCAT) 1966 INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS (ICCPR) 2006 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS FROM ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE 1951 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES
1998 ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 1987 EUROPEAN CONVENTION 1969 AMERICAN CONVENTION 1985 INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION

Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Islamic Republic of) Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao Peoples Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho
Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia (the former Yugoslav Republic of) Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia (Federated States of)
Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papua New Guinea
on Human Rights for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. on Human Rights to Prevent and Punish Torture
COUNTRY
1984 CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE 2002 OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE (OPCAT) 1966 INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS (ICCPR) 2006 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS FROM ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE 1951 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES
1998 ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 1987 EUROPEAN CONVENTION 1969 AMERICAN CONVENTION 1985 INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION

Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Republic of Korea Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka

Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Tajikistan Tanzania (United Republic of) Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United States of America
Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Vietnam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . GEOGRAPHY OF. TORTURE A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT LEXICON
359
LEXICON
Black sites
Black sites are clandestine detention centres controlled by the United States secret services. Located outside of the US territory, they allow intelligence agencies to circumvent legislation forbidding the use of torture and defining rules governing the arrest and detention of suspects. Detainees may be interrogated there without the benefit of any protection of the law.
Diplomatic assurances
Diplomatic assurances are agreements (whether formal or casual) concluded between two States, guaranteeing that a person sent back from a State to another (either through expulsion, deportation, removal measures, or extradition) will be treated with dignity upon his arrival in the receiving country. This practice is used by States such as Russia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, France, and Sweden, particularly against people suspected of terrorism when they are transferred to States that resort to torture and ill-treatment. By invoking these diplomatic assurances, States seek to circumvent the principle of non-refoulement* and the absolute nature of the prohibition against torture. These agreements have no legal force and provide no real safeguard against the risks of torture and ill-treatment for the person being sent back.
360
LEXICON . A OF TORTURE . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE GEOGRAPHY WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT 2011 REPORT
361
Committee against Torture

The United Nations Committee against Torture (CAT) is the monitoring body for the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (ten December 1984). Consisting of 10 members serving in their personal capacity, it meets twice a year at the UN to examine the periodic reports submitted by the States parties (one year after the entry into force of the Convention, and theoretically every four years thereafter), on advancement of the implementation of the rights and obligations contained in the Convention. As a result of its review, the CAT addresses its concerns and makes recommendations to the State party in the form of concluding observations. Under certain conditions, the CAT is competent to consider violations of the rights set forth in the Convention and brought to its attention by private individuals through communications*. It may initiate investigations and review complaints between States. In the course of its analysis of reports, the Committee against Torture has adopted general observations that interpret certain specific aspects of the Convention.
To the Human Rights Council under the procedure known as 1503, which allows identifying, on the basis of communications, a series of flagrant and systematic violations of human rights. Communications may come from any person or group of persons claiming that they were the victim of such violation or that they have knowledge thereof.
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) is the body of the Council of Europe responsible for implementing the places of detention's inspection mechanism provided for in the 1987 European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The CPT is composed of independent experts elected for a four-year term by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, and conducts periodic visits to the places of detention of the States parties (including police stations, migrant holding centres and psychiatric establishments) to assess the treatment of people deprived of their liberty. It notifies the State concerned of its intention to carry out a visit but, unlike the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT)*, is not required to provide the timeframe within which this visit is to be held. CPT delegations have an unlimited access to all places of detention and may interview freely and privately any person deprived of liberty as well as any person likely to provide information. At the end of its visit, the CPT sends the State concerned a confidential report setting out its findings and recommendations. In the case where the State do not cooperate or refuse to implement the recommendations formulated by the CPT, the latter may decide to issue a public statement. As of 30 July 2010, the CPT had conducted 291 visits and published 240 reports.
Communications
Under UN terminology, a communication concerning human rights is a complaint regarding breaches of these rights. It may be addressed: To the supervisory bodies of treaties, such as the Human Rights Committee* for allegations of violations of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Committee against Torture* (CAT) for allegations of violations of the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Communications may be filed by or on behalf of private individuals, provided that the State party has ratified the treaty concerned and recognized the competence of the Committee. For a communication to be receivable, the individual must have exhausted all domestic remedies, or it must be evident that these would prove ineffective or would exceed reasonable delays. Furthermore, the communication must not be currently examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. To the Human Rights Council*, as part of its Special Procedures* (country- or thematic-based mechanisms, such as the Special Rapporteur* on Torture). Communications may be submitted by the victims, their relatives, a local or international NGO, etc. Special Procedures apply to all member States of the UN, regardless of the treaties they ratified.
Extraordinary rendition
Extraordinary rendition is the set of illegal practices through which the CIA kidnaps people, particularly those suspected of belonging to the al-Qaeda network, and clandestinely transfers them into the hands of third-party State authorities, where they are secretly detained and interrogated without regular judicial or administrative supervision. As the intelligence services of these countries often resort to torture, these extraordinary renditions may be viewed as a means to outsource torture, and make it unnecessary within the country. Some of the people thus kidnapped may be detained in United States bases located outside of the territory (e.g. Baghram in Afghanistan, the island of Digo Garcia in the Indian Ocean), on the US Navy vessels, or in black sites*.
362
363
Falaqa (also spelled Falaka and Falanga)

This method of torture consists in whipping the soles of a detainee's feet with a truncheon, an iron rod, a cane, a cable The victim is tied down horizontally, for example on a table, or suspended upside down. This technique is very hurtful because of the many nerve endings clustered in the feet. Once the victim has been released, he may be forced to walk on bloodied feet, sometimes over a salt-covered surface. The falaqa damages both the soft tissues and the small bones of the feet, may lead to chronic infirmities, and may make walking a painful and difficult activity. Universal, as all methods of torture, the falaqa is notably used in Middle East and North Africa countries.
brought to its attention by private individuals through communications. In the course of its analysis of reports, the Human Rights Committee has also developed a case law of sorts through the adoption of general observations which interpret certain specific aspects of the Covenant's provisions.
Human Rights Council

Created by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 March 2006, the United Nations Human Rights Council replaces the Commission on Human Rights (1946-2006) as the intergovernmental body tasked with promoting and overlooking the respect of human rights throughout the world. Consisting of the 47 States members elected by an absolute majority by the General Assembly for a three-year term (renewable), it meets three times a year at the UN, in Geneva, and may hold extraordinary sessions. The General Assembly of the United Nations may, by a two-third majority decision of its members, suspend a member of the Human Rights Council found guilty of flagrant and systematic violations of human rights.
Forced disappearance
One speaks of forced (or enforced) disappearance when a person is arrested, abducted or detained by State agents (or by people acting with the support or consent of the State), and when the authorities refuse to recognize the deprivation of liberty or conceal the person's fate and the place where he is being held. Removed from society, unable to have their rights respected or to benefit from the protection of the law, disappeared persons are at the mercy of their captors. They are often tortured and murdered. Resorting to forced disappearances is a strategy of terror which seeks to keep a society in line and eliminate the opponents. It is also a strategy to organize impunity, which due to the absence of information, cadavers, and evidence allows to cover up both the crime and the State's (and its leaders) responsibility. For families and relatives, not knowing the fate of the missing person, nor indeed if this person is still alive, is a never-ending suffering. The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance was signed on 20 December 2006. It came into effect in December 2010, after 20 States had ratified it.
Incommunicado detention
A detainee is held incommunicado when he is allowed no communication outside of his detention centre. His only interlocutors are his fellow prisoners (if he is not being held in solitary confinement*), his guards, those who interrogate him and, if applicable, the judicial authorities. Theoretically, he may neither meet nor contact his family, his friends, a lawyer or a physician.
International Criminal Court

Created by the Rome Statute adopted on 17 July 1998 (ratified by 117 States as of November 2010), the International Criminal Court (ICC) is the first permanent international criminal court competent to prosecute and try persons responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocides. The ICC, which sits at The Hague, may judge nationals of the States parties or persons responsible for crimes committed within the territory of these States, but only in cases that have occurred since its statute came into effect. Under the principle of complementarity, the ICC is only competent in the event of failure or bad faith of States. Since September 2004, the ICC has heard 13 cases involving crimes committed in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Uganda, the Central African Republic, Sudan (Darfur), Kenya, Libya, and Cte dIvoire, a situation that was referred by the Security Council. On 31 March 2010, the ICC allowed the Prosecutor to open an investigation into crimes committed in Kenya.
Human Rights Committee

The United Nations Human Rights Committee is the monitoring body for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (16 December 1966). Consisting of 18 members serving in their personal capacity, it meets three times a year at the UN to examine the periodic reports submitted by the States parties to the Covenant on the advancement of the implementation of the rights recognized in this instrument. As a result of its review, the Human Rights Committee addresses its concerns and makes recommendations to the State party in the form of concluding observations. Under the corresponding Optional Protocol, and under certain conditions, it is competent to consider violations of the rights set forth in the Covenant and
364
365
Istanbul Protocol
The Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, known as the Istanbul Protocol, is a guideline for the documentation of torture. This text, approved by the United Nations in 1999, aims to draft and implement effective measures to protect individuals against torture and to fight against the impunity of torturers. It provides medical and legal experts with a methodology to help them determine whether a person has been tortured and establish evidence which may be used in a court of law. It details, among other points, how to produce medical reports or to gather testimonies if they are to be used in legal proceedings against alleged torturers. The Istanbul Protocol has no mandatory value for States, but it does represent an effective tool for them, insofar as international law requires them to investigate acts of torture.
Palestinian hanging
Palestinian hanging is a method of torture that consists in suspending a person to a rope tied around his elbows or wrists, with the arms placed behind the back, and without allowing the feet to touch the ground. While suspension by the arms (or by a single arm) for extended periods is a technique often used by torturers, this variant proves even more painful, insofar as the full weight of the body forces the shoulder articulation upside-down. During the Inquisition, this method was known as strappado. This form of torture is frequently used in combination with other kinds of abuses, such as beatings or electric shocks.
Psychological torture (White torture)

Besides the most brutal physical abuses, torturers also resort to other methods of torture so-called psychological. These increasingly sophisticated techniques seek to break the victims more efficiently while fostering the impunity of torturers (fewer visible physical signs, use of methods less likely to be perceived as torture). Less medieval in appearance, these processes inflict sufferings that are just as intolerable, and their after-effects are often far more lasting than those of merely bodily traumas. The methods most often used are: keeping the detainee in absolute uncertainty and dependence (eyes blindfolded, hooded head, personal effects and clothes confiscated, maintenance in solitary confinement*); sleep deprivation extended over several days; sensory deprivation: maintenance in complete darkness through prolonged wearing of a blindfold over the eyes and/or maintenance in absolute silence through wearing soundproof hats; sensory hyper-stimulation: hours-long subjection to intense noises (music, screams, whistles), to blinding and/or strobe lights, to constant lights, day and night; death threats, and mock executions. White torture can also consist of solitary confinement and the prohibition against any kind of communication, including with the guards and prisoners; of being threatened with or forced to be present during the torture or rape of one's loved ones; of offences against one's moral or religious values the obligation to be naked or, in the case of a man, to wear feminine underwear, the obligation to simulate or have sexual intercourse, the profanation of sacred objects, the obligation to blaspheme or insult one's homeland; of the total regulation of the detainee's life down to the smallest detail; of the forced ingestion of psychotropic drugs intended to generate psychic modifications; of the obligation to execute absurd, contradictory or degrading orders; of the seclusion to a mental hospital where the victim is being subjected to aggressive medication (injection of antipsychotics) intended for mentally ill patients. All these forms of psychological torture are often alternated with physical abuses.
National Preventive Mechanisms

States parties to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) commit to establish National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) tasked with periodically reviewing the treatment of people deprived of their liberty. NPMs make recommendations to the authorities to improve detention conditions and strengthen the protection against torture and ill-treatment. NPMs are helped and counselled by the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT) to fulfill their mission.
Non-refoulement
The principle of non-refoulement is the prohibition for States to transfer a person to another country when this would expose the said person to serious human rights violations, such as the arbitrary deprivation of the right to life, torture, or any other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Initially stated in the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951), the principle of non-refoulement was reiterated in many international and regional human rights protection treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), the European Convention on Human Rights (1950). It is derived from the absolute prohibition against torture, which as peremptory customary norm in international law is mandatory for all States, whether or not these are signatories to the applicable corresponding treaties. It must be complied with under all circumstances, including in the context of the fight against terrorism and during armed conflicts.
366
367
Roasted chicken (Also known as: Pau de arara [in Portuguese], parrot's perch)
This is a method used to immobilize and suspend the victim. A rod is introduced under the detainee's knees and over his elbows, whose hands and feet are bound together. The rod is then fixed horizontally between two supports (tables, chairs) as a parrot's perch would be. The detainee most often naked, completely immobilized for hours in a painful and humiliating position is beaten, electrocuted, raped While this technique is used by torturers of all countries, South American's (and particularly Brazil's ) police forces made massive use of it under the dictatorships of the sixties and seventies.
Solitary confinement
Solitary confinement may be imposed for the purpose of an investigation, to protect a detainee, or as a security measure against the prisoners considered the most dangerous. However, it is very often used as a punitive measure (theoretically of limited duration), inflicted as an additional punishment to detention. Placing a detainee in solitary confinement consists in confining him alone in a cell (often a small one) with no or very little communication with other detainees. In some cases, the detainee may be confined for almost twenty-three hours (sometimes even for twentyfour hours) per day in a room equipped with a very small window (if any), and he remains alone, even during the rare walks he takes in fenced yards. Furthermore, the possibilities of contacts with the outside world are strictly limited, when actually non-existent: letters are censored and sometimes come months later, if ever; access to reading material is restricted, telephone calls are forbidden; work is denied, as are the opportunities to participate in education or reinsertion activities. Prolonged solitary confinement, sometimes over several years, has grave implications on both the physical condition and the mental health of prisoners: physical problems related to the confinement in a narrow cell with little if any illumination, too cold or too hot depending on the seasons, and to the lack of exercise, are compounded by symptoms such as claustrophobia, hypertension, insomnia, anxiety attacks, or a decrease in the ability to concentrate.
Secret detention
A person is detained in a place that is not officially a detention centre: a military camp, a secret jail, a concealed section within a jail or police station, or in private facilities.
Shabah
The shabah is a method of torture that consists in keeping a person tied to a chair for long periods. His hands are handcuffed in the back and drawn back, while his ankles are tied to the legs of the chair, which is usually short (25cm high) and sometimes has one leg shorter than the rest, making it unsteady. The victim can also be blinded with a bag covering his head. The handcuffs, placed on the ankles and wrists, are sometimes tightened to such an extent that they hinder blood circulation. Remaining in this position for hours or even for several days in a row causes very severe pain. The shabah is a variant of those stress positions frequently used as torture techniques. The victim is forced to remain in an uncomfortable position (squatting, on tiptoes, the spine bent backwards, etc.) for a very long time. As the muscles turn numb, these positions quickly become very painful. But the victims must hold them under threat of being beaten, even when they become sleepy. These methods leave no trace on the bodies. Furthermore, when they are not tied, the victims must endeavour to remain in the required position. Out of fear of being beaten, they remain motionless, thus developing the impression that they are inflicting their own suffering on themselves.
Special Procedures
Special Procedures are mechanisms established by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate and intervene anywhere on allegations of violations of these rights around the world. These Special Procedures are represented either by a single individual Special Rapporteur* or Independent Expert (e.g. the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Cte dIvoire) or by a working group (e.g. the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention). By extension, these people or groups are often themselves called Special Procedures. As of November 2011, these Special Procedures numbered 44 (35 thematic and 9 country mandates). Those tasked with a procedure may use any information source, including communications received from individuals or transmitted by NGOs. They enjoy a quick-reaction capacity that allows them to perform hundreds of urgent interventions each year, particularly to defend people in imminent danger. They investigate in the countries involved, discuss with the authorities and victims, and collect the necessary evidence. Their reports are made public to engage the governments responsibility and bring them to cooperate.
368
369
Special Rapporteurs
The United Nations Special Rapporteurs are independent experts, serving in their private, personal and non-remunerated capacity, tasked by the Human Rights Council to review a specific issue (thematic mandates) or a specific situation in a given country or territory (country mandates) in the field of human rights see also Special Procedures. Special Rapporteurs may carry out investigations through onsite visits, at the conclusion of which they draft a report containing their findings and recommendations. They can also receive individual complaints and information describing specific human rights violations; ask for explanations from the States through communications; conduct studies; provide technical assistance to a country; and undertake activities to promote human rights. Each year, they present a report to the Human Rights Council. The Austrian Manfred Nowak was the Special Rapporteur on Torture up to November 2010. His successor is the Argentinian Juan E. Mndez.
Truth Commission
A truth commission is an official investigative body, temporary and non-judicial in nature, tasked with uncovering the truth regarding human rights violations committed in a country during a specific period of civil war or unrest, or under an authoritative regime. Far from being limited to mere fact-finding tasks, the role of truth commissions is to explain the events at stake and to contribute to prevent new breaches. While their work does not fill the need to prosecute the authors of serious human rights violations before a criminal court, their works are often inestimable contributions in the process of national reconciliation, particularly where an inoperative judicial system or amnesty laws hinder legal proceedings. They can be also useful in the event of the subsequent beginning of legal proceedings. The commissions collect the depositions of victims, witnesses, and perpetrators of the violations, conduct investigations into the events in question, and hold public audiences. Upon completing the investigation, they publish a final report that includes their findings and recommendations. Since 1974, when the first truth commission was created for Uganda, 40 truth commissions have been established throughout the world. The most publicised and most important one in terms of resources mobilized is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for South Africa (1996-2002). The most recently formed commissions include the truth commissions set up in Togo (2009), Kenya (2008), Ecuador (2007), and Canada (2006).
Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
The United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT) is the body established by the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (18 December 2002), tasked with inspecting the States parties places of detention. Consisting of 25 independent experts elected for four years by the States parties, the SPT conducts periodic visits, without prior authorization, to the places of detention of the States parties (including police stations, migrant holding centres and psychiatric establishments) to assess the treatment of people deprived of their liberty. It carries out its mission with the collaboration of the National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs). The SPT notifies the State concerned of its intention to perform a visit and specifies the dates on which this visit is to be held. Theoretically, SPT members have an unlimited access to all places of detention and to all information about the detention conditions of prisoners. They may interview freely and privately any person deprived of liberty as well as any person likely to provide information. At the end of its visit, the SPT sends the State concerned a confidential report setting out its findings and recommendations; this report may, at the State's request, be made public, along with any observation the State may wish to make. In the case where the State do not cooperate or refuse to implement the recommendations formulated by the SPT, the latter may ask the Committee against Torture to issue a public statement or to publish the report of the Subcommittee.
Universal Periodic Review

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is the mechanism under which the Human Rights Council reviews the situation of human rights in the 192 member States of the UN General Assembly. Each State is examined every four years, which brings the number of States reviewed each year to 48. Founded on the principles of universality and equal treatment between States, this mechanism constitutes a forum that provides them with an opportunity to present the measures taken to improve the situation of human rights in their country and share their experiences and better practices on the subject. The UPR also seeks to provide the States with assistance in the effective treatment of human rights-related problems. NGOs may attend the review and express their position in a plenary session prior to the adoption of the final recommendations.
370
371
Universal jurisdiction
Notwithstanding the classic rules of jurisdiction, international law acknowledges that the courts of a State may exercise their jurisdiction on behalf of the entire international community as far as certain serious crimes with international repercussions are concerned, e.g. torture (the United Nations Convention Against Torture, 1984), war crimes (Geneva Conventions, 1949), or forced disappearances (International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, 2006). So-called universal jurisdiction therefore allows national courts to judge certain crimes wherever they were committed, including the territory of another State, even if these crimes involve foreign victims or suspects. Most States which have recognized this principle condition the launching of any proceedings to the suspect's presence on their territory. For example, France exercised this type of jurisdiction to condemn a Mauritanian torturer in 2005 and a Tunisian torturer in 2010. However, it may not be called upon in cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, contrary to most Western States, because of a law, enacted in August 2010, that sets up several restrictive and cumulative conditions hindering the resort to this type of jurisdiction for such crimes. One of the major obstacles to the effective application of this mechanism is widely due to the States lack of political will and the fact that they prefer to foster good diplomatic relations rather than fight against impunity.
Waterboarding and simulated drowning

Waterboarding is an interrogation method that consists in immobilizing a prisoner to a board, usually face up (often with the feet slightly higher than the head). A piece of cloth or plastic is forcefully placed over the prisoner's face, over which water is poured to provoke a sensation of drowning or suffocation. The extreme pain is accompanied by the feeling one is dying. CIA agents who accepted to be subjected to this method have stated it was very difficult to resist for more than fifteen seconds. In reference to this method, commonly used by the United States secret services, the term simulated drowning is often used. ACAT believes this to be a very useful euphemism to camouflage the suffering caused. Actually, waterboarding is merely a more sophisticated version of the torture by immersion into or forced ingestion of large amounts of water (sometimes with the addition of detergents, urine). It has long been a favourite of torturers, because of its effectiveness and the few marks it leaves. In this sense, waterboarding hardly differs from the so-called bathtub torture used by the Gestapo.
372
373
METHODOLOGY NOTE
Observations on the principles followed in the preparation and organization of the report
This is the second report ACAT-France devotes to the study of torture around the world. While A World of Torture may be read without having had the 2010 edition in hand, it takes on its full meaning if seen as the extension of last year's report. While waiting for next year's one. This report is divided into two parts. The first, called Geography of Torture, continues the factual description of the practices of torture in 23 new countries spread out in the 5 continents (after the 22 countries previously reviewed). They have been selected according to the news, the sources at the disposal of ACAT-France, the actions it carries out, and, of course, some sense of geographical balance. Thus, year after year, will this world encyclopedia of torture which it is our ambition to write be built up. The second part, Analysis of Torture, opens up with the specific study of a 24th country: Syria, a choice justified by current events, insofar as the bloody repression conducted by the security services of Bashar al-Assad appears as one of the most brutal of these last few months and one which is particularly illustrative of a massive resort to torture in order to terrorize a population engaged in a peaceful revolt. This part then leads into the publication of original texts written by actors in the fight against torture and by researchers (philosophers, jurists, theologians), seeking to explain and understand the multiple dimensions of this major breach of human rights and dignity. Analysis of Torture aims to be a place where, beyond the bare facts presented at the start of this work, the authors approached by ACAT-France endeavour to think about the various specificities of torture and its most significant invariants; to grasp the individual, geopolitical, cultural, economic and other reasons that might explain its persistence; or to study the legal and moral means to combat it.
For the sake of objectivity, and in order to facilitate the comparison between the States examined here, each country's fact sheet follows the same structure: after a brief overview of the political and social context, the practices of torture are exposed successively by listing the victims, the torturers and the places where they operate, as well as their methods and objectives. The law and legal practice in force are then studied through a presentation of the way in which this crime is legally condemned and its authors prosecuted. These country fact sheets are organised by geographical area. For each one, an introduction describes the overall geopolitical situation and how torture is used in the region. Brief observations also appear at the end of these texts on the evolution of the situation in the countries reviewed in 2010. To facilitate the reading, bibliographical notes specifying our sources of information are gathered at the end of each fact sheet.1 As ACAT-France's own network of sources is only present in a limited number of countries, these come largely from NGOs struggling against torture and from the work of international bodies and institutions, such as the UN Special Rapporteur* on Torture, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, the UN Committee against Torture* (CAT), the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, and so on. At the end of the report, a lexicon2 contains the definition of more technical words and concepts, the explanation of which within the body of the document would have burdened the reading. They are marked in the text with an asterisk (*), and are then sorted alphabetically. As was done last year, we have compiled a synoptic table of the signatures and ratifications by the various States of the international conventions prohibiting torture or seeking to prevent it. Satisfying the very purpose of ACAT-France, this report is intended to be a useful tool in the fight against torture. And to this effect, it aims to combine the accuracy of facts, the quality and rigour of the proposed reflections, the exactness of analyses, with a simple and accessible reading experience. An indispensable condition if our goal is to be read by the largest number of people. We hope we have achieved this.
[1] The system of dual bibliographical entries (in footnotes and report endnotes) used in the first edition was not used this time. [2] The word lexicon replaces that of glossary, used in 2010, and the thematic ordering of entries has been replaced by a merely alphabetical sorting.
UN MONDE TORTIONNAIRE . RAPPORT ACAT-FRANCE 2011 . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
375
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

This second edition of ACAT-France's annual report, A World of Torture, saw the light thanks to a major collective effort. Many are those who, to varying degrees, participated in the design, writing, critical rereading, conception An involvement which quite often widely exceeded the role for which they are given credit here. May they all be warmly thanked.
Managing Editor | Jean-Bernard Marie Editorial design and follow-up (ACAT-France's Commission on Torture) | Anne-Ccile Antoni (Supervisor), Sverine Durand, Vladimir Gaudrat, Mari Cecilia Gmez, Jean-tienne de Linares, Ccile Marcel, Jean-Bernard Marie, Franois Picart, Denis Rafinesque Coordination | Olivia Moulin Foreword | Franois Walter Introduction | Jean-tienne de Linares Geography of Torture | country fact sheets and regional introductions > Americas | Anne Boucher > Asia | Christine Laroque > Europe | Ccile Marcel > Middle East & North Africa | Hlne Legeay > Sub-Saharan Africa | Clment Boursin Olivia Moulin wrote the fact sheets on Cuba, the United States and the United Kingdom. Lisa Aradan, Coralie Colson, Perrine Corcuff, Emmanuelle Harang and Olivia Moulin participated in the drafting of some of the country fact sheets. Analysis of Torture Contributors | Olivier Abel, Sylvie Bukhari-de Pontual, Jrme Ferrari, Sandra Lehalle, Ccile Marcel, Juan E. Mndez, Khaled Sid Mohand, ric Sottas, Radwan Ziadeh > Interviews | Hlne Legeay, Jean-tienne de Linares, Olivia Moulin
>
Afterword | Michel Terestchenko Ratifications Table | Ccile Marcel Lexicon | Florence Hervey, Jean-tienne de Linares Illustrations | Bruno Le Sourd (in Linstant davant. La torture en accusation [The moment before. Torture under impeachment], by Vincent Feroldi, 2006) Traduction | Roger Jean-Charles Sabourin (TTI Network) Revision | Sabrina At-Aoudia, Christopher Asprey, Olivia Moulin Correction | Manal Al Chaarani, Anne-Ccile Antoni, Annie Barriquand, Blandine Boyer, Patrick Byrne, lisabeth Dalstein, Christian Laine, dith Langlois, Ccile Marcel, Olivia Moulin, Franois Walter Graphic design and layout | Coralie Pouget, Patrice Philtas
We wish to thank ACAT-Burundi, ACAT-Philippines and ACAT-United Kingdom for rereading the corresponding fact sheets, as well as the FIACAT for the article on the effectiveness of UN mechanisms.
ACAT. THE NGO OF CHRISTIANS COMMITTED TO HUMAN RIGHTS

ACAT-France is a non-governmental organization founded in 1974 to fight against torture and capital punishment, and for the protection of all victims. The first ACAT of the international FIACAT network (which has consultative status before the United Nations), ACAT-France is a recognized public-interest foundation. Its thousands of members, its expertise, its successes, its international renown, have made it a benchmark NGO.
Taking Action for Human Dignity. Over and over again.

Sierra Leone, prison centrale de Freetown / photographie : Fernando Moleres / graphisme : coralie.pouget@acatfrance.fr
The specificity of our action

ACAT bases its action on those of its members. Members, donors, volunteers and headquarters employees. Each is asked to act according to his abilities. There are many means of exerting strong pressure on governments, decision-makers, international authorities, representations, elected officials: petitions, gatherings, demonstrations, legal action, awareness raising campaigns, advocacy, on-site investigations, reports, etc.
NO TORTURE NOR DEATH PENALTY
ACAT acts in a completely transparent, and democratic manner. Each year, a General Assembly, representing all the regional structures, elects a Steering Committee that defines the policy of the association. Within this Committee, an executive board manages the actions of ACAT and oversees the scrupulous use of its financial resources. These, which are overwhelmingly obtained from private donations, are subjected to the strict control of the independent supervisory body Comit de la charte and an independent statutory auditor. ACAT proclaims its Christian identity and fosters ecumenism in its everyday activities. It seeks to further the dialogue between Christians, allowing them to unite through action and prayer, leaving past disputes behind and viewing their current differences as a boon rather than an obstacle. Because Christian voices must carve out a different path, one that favours life, hope, humanity.
action by christians for the abolition of torture | 7 rue georges lardennois 75019 paris.
TAKING ACTION. FOR A WORLD OF DIGNITY

ACAT bases its action on the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and on the Gospel according to Matthew, 25:40: inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.
THE YEAR IN FIGURES

A A A A A A A 149 releases 68 countries of intervention 35,000 members and donors in France 365 ACAT groups in France 23 employees at its Paris headquarters 100,000 petitions, 1,332 actions, reports, campaigns, calls per year 1 standard-setting annual report on torture around the world
Protecting
Exerting pressure
Promoting international justice

The crimes against which ACAT fights
A Torture and others cruel, inhuman
Supporting
or degrading treatments or punishments A Judicial or extrajudicial executions A Forced disappearances A War crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocides
Fighting against forgetting
L OUR MANDATE
> > >
Raising awareness
Informing
fight against torture abolish capital punishment protect victims
UNBIASED ACTION
Without any distinction of ideology, race, opinion, religion.
FREE ACTION
Without any political, religious or financial pressure.
CONSCIOUS ACTION
Of our identity, our responsibilities, our commitments.
TRANSPARENT ACTION
Under the ongoing supervision of the Comit de la Charte pour le don en confiance.
ACAT MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF ACAT - FIACAT
FIACAT
Founded in 1987, the International Federation of the Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (FIACAT), an international non-governmental organization for the defence of human rights, consists of 30 ACAT found on four continents: six are under affiliation. An association under French law, its mandate is to fight for the abolition of torture and capital punishment.
AFRICA
ACAT-Benin
Cotonou ACAT_coordbnin@yahoo.fr
ACAT-Democratic Republic of the Congo

National coordination: acatrdc_coordinat@yahoo.fr
EUROPE
ACAT-Germany
Ldinghausen ACAT.ev@t-online.of
ACAT-Burkina Faso
Ouagadougou acatburkina@yahoo.fr
ACAT-Senegal
Dakar acatsenegal@yahoo.fr
ACAT-Belgium (Flemish)
The missions
International representation of the network The FIACAT represents the ACATs on the international and regional level. FIACAT has consultative status before the United Nations (UN) and International Organisation of La Francophonie (OIF), participative status at the Council of Europe and observer status before the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR). The FIACAT also works closely with other non-governmental organizations promoting the defence of human rights, as well as with Churches and religious communities. Network animation The FIACAT helps ACAT structure themselves and become significant civil society players, able to influence the evolution of their country's mindsets and structures, starting with the Christian communities and Churches. It helps the network thrive by fostering exchanges, proposing regional or international training, and through shared initiatives. Thus, it supports the actions of ACAT and provides them with a point of contact on the international level. It encourages the creation of new national ACAT and the implantation of regional structures, crucial elements for the national associations.
ACAT-Burundi
ACAT-Chad
Bruges secretariaat@ACAT-belgie-vlaanderen.org
Bujumbura acatburundi@yahoo.fr
NDjamena acatchad@yahoo.fr
ACAT-Belgium (French)
ACAT-Cameroon
ACAT-Togo
Brussels acatbelgiquefranco@hotmail.com
Bamenda ACAT_cameroon@yahoo.com
Lom acattogo@yahoo.fr
ACAT-Spain
Barcelona ACAT@pangea.org
ACAT-Central African Republic

Bangui ACAT_rca@yahoo.fr
AMERICA
ACAT-Brazil
So Paulo acatbrasil@acatbrasil.org.br
ACAT-France
Paris ACAT@acatfrance.fr
ACAT-Congo
ACAT-Italy
Pointe-Noire acatcongo_brazza@yahoo.fr
ACAT-Canada (French)
Montreal info@acatcanada.org
Rome acatitalia@yahoo.it
ACAT-Cte dIvoire
ACAT-Luxembourg
Abidjan ACAT_ci2230@yahoo.fr
ACAT-Canada (English)
Luxembourg ACAT.luxembourg@pt.lu
ACAT-Ghana*
Ho acatghana@yahoo.com
Toronto torontocoordinator@acatcanada.org
ACAT-Netherlands
ACAT-USA*
Utrecht info@acatnederland.nl
ACAT-Liberia*
Monrovia acatliberiamail@yahoo.com
Pleasant Hill info@acatusa.org
ACAT-Czech republic*
Prague acatpraha@seznam.cz
ACAT-Madagascar International Federation of the Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture - www.fiacat.org International Secretariat: 27 rue de Maubeuge 75009 PARIS - France Tel. +33 (0)1.42.80.01.60 - Fax. +33 (0)1.42.80.20.89 Permanent Representation at the UN: 1 Rue de Varemb 1202 GENEVA - Switzerland / Tel. +41 7874.99.328
Antananarivo acatmadagascar@yahoo.fr
ASIA
ACAT-Philippines*
Manila chie6122002@yahoo.com
ACAT-United Kingdom
Cornwall uk.ACAT@googlemail.com
ACAT-Mali
ACAT-Switzerland
Bern info@ACAT.ch
Bamako sdacatmali@yahoo.fr
ACAT-Niger*
Niamey mourniger@yahoo.fr
* ACAT currently undergoing affiliation process
Legal deposit 2011 ISBN: 978-2-9538051-2-3
Impression | Corlet, 14110 Cond-sur-Noireau
Cover photographs | Fernando Moleres, Yuri Kozyrev/NOOR
This document was produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of ACAT-France, and under no circumstance may they be deemed to reflect the position of the European Union.
ACAT-France, 7 rue Georges Lardennois | 75019 Paris www.acatfrance.fr The entire text of this report is available at www.unmondetortionnaire.com
A World of Torture
Every day, the fate of thousands of men, women and even children is left to the imagination of torturers. At this very instant, in most countries around the world, the use of torture is a common sometimes even routine practice. What is torture? Which countries are involved? What purpose does it serve? To investigate? To punish? To terrorize? Is death penalty a form of torture? What moral convictions underpin the absolute rejection of this indignity? Do Christians have specific reasons to engage in this fight? The 2011 report A World of Torture follows the report published a year ago by ACAT-France. Its ambition is the same: to describe the magnitude and reality of torture practices in 23 new countries, while carrying on to analyze the multiple dimensions of this phenomenon and the factors that promote it. The second volume of a future encyclopedia of torture.
ACAT-France is an NGO created in 1974 with the purpose of fighting torture anywhere around the world by raising awareness of this struggle among Christians and, more widely, in the general public opinion, calling on all to act for all victims, without an ethnic, ideological or religious distinction. A recognized of public-interest ecumenical association, ACAT-France also works to abolish capital punishment and protect victims, particularly by defending the right to seek asylum.
| action by christians for the abolition of torture
The entire text of this report is available at www.unmondetortionnaire.com
ISBN : 978 -2-953 8 051-2-3

Informe ACAT "A World of Torture"

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Informe ACAT "A World of Torture"

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Informe ACAT "A World of Torture"

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of the report?

What is the purpose of the report?

What countries does the report cover?

What countries does the report cover?

ACAT-France 2011 Report

with the financial support of the European Union

ACAT-France 2011 Report

ACAT-France is a member of the FIACAT, the International Federation of ACAT.

ACTION BY CHRISTIANS FOR THE ABOLITION OF TORTURE | www.acatfrance.fr

DEFINING TORTURE FOREWORD

A Relentless Machine | jean-tienne de linares

27 29 31 34 42 50 58 70 79 81 84 92 100 108 116 125 127 130 138 146

Introduction Chile Cuba Honduras United States Venezuela

Introduction India Kazakhstan Philippines Thailand Vietnam

Introduction Bosnia and Herzegovina Moldova United Kingdom

Middle East & North Africa

Two Portraits of Torturers in a Contemporary Novel

| interview with jrme ferrari 287

The Socioeconomic and Cultural Causes behind Torture

Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . FOREWORD

From Indifference to Action

FOREWORD . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT

A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . FOREWORD

A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT

A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . INTRODUCTION

Torture as an instrument of power

INTRODUCTION . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT

A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . INTRODUCTION

The impunity of torturers

The dehumanisation of victims

INTRODUCTION . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT

A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . INTRODUCTION

Democratic societies too

INTRODUCTION . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT

A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . INTRODUCTION

Torture within each one of us

INTRODUCTION . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT

What hope is there?

A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . GEOGRAPHY OF TORTURE

A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . GEOGRAPHY OF TORTURE

GEOGRAPHY OF TORTURE . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT

A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . GEOGRAPHY OF TORTURE

GEOGRAPHY OF TORTURE . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT

A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . GEOGRAPHY OF TORTURE

GEOGRAPHY OF TORTURE . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT

A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . GEOGRAPHY OF TORTURE

GEOGRAPHY OF TORTURE . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT

A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . GEOGRAPHY OF TORTURE

Methods and Objectives

Torturers and Torture Sites

GEOGRAPHY OF TORTURE . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT

A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . GEOGRAPHY OF TORTURE

LAW AND LEGAL PRACTICE Legal Condemnation of Torture

Punishment of Perpetrators of Torture

GEOGRAPHY OF TORTURE . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT

A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT . GEOGRAPHY OF TORTURE

GEOGRAPHY OF TORTURE . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT-FRANCE 2011 REPORT