Torture

Torture

Throughout history, torture has been used as a method of political re-education, interrogation, punishment, and coercion. In addition to state-sponsored torture, individuals or groups may be motivated to inflict torture on others for similar reasons to those of a state; however, the motive for torture can also be for the sadistic gratification of the torturer, as in the Moors murders.

Torture is prohibited under international law and the domestic laws of most countries in the 21st century. It is considered to be a violation of human rights, and is declared to be unacceptable by Article 5 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols I and II of 8 June 1977 officially agree not to torture captured persons in armed conflicts, whether international or internal. Torture is also prohibited by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which has been ratified by 155 countries.[64]

National and international legal prohibitions on torture derive from a consensus that torture and similar ill-treatment are immoral, as well as impractical.[65] Despite these international conventions, organizations that monitor abuses of human rights (e.g. Amnesty International, the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims) report widespread use condoned by states in many regions of the world.[66] Amnesty International estimates that at least 81 world governments currently practice torture, some of them openly.[67]

纵观历史,刑讯逼供已用作政治方法再教育,审讯,惩罚,和强迫。除了国家资助的酷刑,个人或团体可能会促使造成折磨别人出于类似的原因的状态;然而,虐待狂的动机酷刑也可以满足虐待者,在摩尔人谋杀。

禁止酷刑的国际法和国内法下大多数国家在21世纪。它被认为是违反了人权,并宣布第五条是不可接受的联合国《世界人权宣言》。1949年日内瓦公约的签署国和附加协议I和II 8 1977年6月正式同意不虐待俘虏的人在武装冲突,无论是国际还是内部。折磨也是禁止联合国禁止酷刑公约,已批准155个国家。[64]

国家和国际法律禁止酷刑来自类似的共识,酷刑和虐待都是不道德的,不切实际的。[65]尽管有这些国际公约,监控滥用人权的组织(例如大赦国际,国际康复委员会酷刑受害者)报告广泛使用宽恕的国家在世界上的许多地区。[66]大赦国际(Amnesty International)估计,至少81年世界各国政府目前实践酷刑,其中一些公开。[67

Torture is the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological pain and possibly injury to a person (or animal), usually to one who is physically restrained or otherwise under the torturer's control or custody and unable to defend against what is being done to them. Torture has been carried out or sanctioned by individuals, groups and states throughout history from ancient times to modern day, and forms of torture can vary greatly in duration from only a few minutes to several days or even longer. Reasons for torture can include punishment, revenge, political re-education, deterrence, interrogation orcoercion of the victim or a third party, or simply the sadistic gratification of those carrying out or observing the torture. The torturer may or may not intend to kill or injure the victim, but sometimes torture is deliberately fatal and can precede a murder or serve as a cruel form of capital punishment. In other cases, the torturer may be indifferent to the condition of the victim. Alternatively, some forms of torture are designed to inflict psychological pain or leave as little physical injury or evidence as possible while achieving

the same psychological devastation. Depending on the aim, even a form of torture that is intentionally fatal may be prolonged to allow the victim to suffer as long as possible (such as half-hanging).

Although torture was sanctioned by some states historically, torture in the 21st century is prohibited under international law and the domestic laws of most countries. It is considered to be a violation of human rights, and is declared to be unacceptable by Article 5 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols I and II of 8 June 1977 officially agree not to torture captured persons in armed conflicts, whether international or internal. Torture is also prohibited by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which has been ratified by 155 countries.[1]

National and international legal prohibitions on torture derive from a consensus that torture and similar ill-treatment are immoral, as well as impractical.[2]Despite these international conventions, organizations that monitor abuses of human rights (e.g. Amnesty International, the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, etc.) report widespread use condoned by states in many regions of the world.[3] Amnesty International estimates that at least 81 world governments currently practice torture, some of them openly.[4] Historically, in those countries where torture was legally supported and officially condoned, wealthy patrons sponsored the creation of extraordinarily ingenious devices and techniques of torture.

酷刑的行为是故意造成严重的身体或心理痛苦和可能损害一个人(或动物),通常人身体的限制或其他虐待者的控制或托管和无法抵御对他们正在做的事情。酷刑进行了或批准的个人、组织和国家在历史上从古代到现代,和形式的酷刑都可能存在很大差别的持续时间从几分钟到数天或更长的时间。刑讯逼供的原因包括惩罚、报复,政治再教育,威慑,审讯orcoercion受害人或第三方,或简单的施虐狂的满足开展观察酷刑。行刑者可能会或可能不会打算杀死或伤害的受害者,但有时酷刑是故意致命和可以先于谋杀或作为一种残忍的死刑。在其他情况下,虐待者可能对受害者的状况。另外,某些形式的折磨是为了造成心理痛苦或离开尽可能少的人身伤害或证据而实现相同的心理破坏。根据不同的目标,甚至是一种折磨,是故意致命可能长期允许受害人遭受尽可能长时间(比如half-hanging)。

虽然酷刑是批准的一些州历史上,根据国际法禁止酷刑在21世纪,大多数国家的国内法。它被认为是违反了人权,并宣布第五条是不可接受的联合国《世界人权宣言》。1949年日内瓦公约的签署国和附加协议I和II 8 1977年6月正式同意不虐待俘虏的人在武装冲突,无论是国际还是内部。折磨也是禁止联合国禁止酷刑公约,已批准155个国家。[1]

国家和国际法律禁止酷刑来自类似的共识,酷刑和虐待都是不道德的,不切实际的。[2]尽管有这些国际公约,监控滥用人权的组织(例如大赦国际,国际康复委员会酷刑受害者,等等)报告广泛使用宽恕的国家在世界上的许多地区。[3]大赦国际(Amnesty International)估计,至少81年世界各国政府目前实践酷刑,他们中的一些人公开。[4]从历史上看,在这些国家,酷刑是正式法律支持和纵容,富有的赞助人赞助的创建非常巧妙的设备和技术的酷刑。 Motion

如何定义？

Human rights are moral principles that set out certain standards of human behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in national andinternational law.[1] They are %understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.\

everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). The doctrine of human rights has been highly influential within international law, global and regional institutions. Policies of states and in the activities of non-governmental organizations and have become a cornerstone of public policy around the world. The idea of human rights[3] suggests, \the public discourse of peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral language, it is that of human rights.\The strong claims made by the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke considerable skepticism and debates about the content, nature and justifications of human rights to this day. Indeed, the question of what is meant by a \is itself controversial and the subject of continued philosophical debate.[4]

Many of the basic ideas that animated the human rights movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World War and the atrocities of The Holocaust, culminating in the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The ancient world did not possess the concept of universal human rights.[5] The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval Natural law tradition that became prominent during the Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and featured prominently in the English Bill of Rights and the political discourse of the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

From this foundation, the modern human rights arguments emerged over the latter half of the twentieth century.[6]

Whereas 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... —1st sentence of the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

—Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[7]

人权是人类行为的道德原则,制定一定的标准,并定期为法律权利在国家和国际法律保护。[1]他们是“通常理解为不可剥夺的基本权利,一个人固有的资格,因为她或他是一个人。”[2]因此被设想为普世人权(到处都适用)和平均主义(对每个人都同样的)。人权学说已经非常有影响力在国际法律,全球和区域机构。政策的国家和非政府组织的活动,已经成为世界各地的公共政策的基石。人权的概念[3]所暗示的那样,“如果和平时期的全球社会的公共话语可以说有共同的道德语言,那就是人权。“强烈主张人权主义的继续引发相当大的怀疑和争论的内容、性质和人权的理由。事实上,这个问题是什么意思的“正确”本身就是有争议的和持续的哲学辩论的话题。[4]

许多动画人权运动的基本思想发达在第二次世界大战之后,大屠杀的暴行,并采用《世界人权宣言》在巴黎在1948年由联合国大会。古代没有普世人权的概念。[5]人权话语的真正先驱是自然权利的概念出现在中世纪的法律传统,成为杰出的启蒙运动期间等哲学家约翰·洛克,弗朗西斯·哈奇森让Burlamaqui,在英语中有突出表现的政治话语权利法案》和美国革命和法国革命。

在此基础上,现代人权的参数出现在20世纪下半叶。[6]

而识别的固有尊严,平等的和不可剥夺的权利的人类大家庭的所有成员是自由的基础,正义与和平的世界??

1日的《世界人权宣言》的序言

所有人类生而拥有尊严和权利的平等和自由。

-Article 1联合国《世界人权宣言》(UDHR)[7]

The right to life: life is the most basic, the most important human rights, if unable to protect people's right to life, then all other rights are castles in the air. Endless depriving people of life, or wantonly to exert threats, abuse and torture people, my way is to use a kind of human rights. [4] allow this to happen, individual rights is impossible. So the general criminal law will have the right to life of other people of all countries most crimes sentencing. \

生命权：生命权是最基本，最重要的人权，如果无法充分保障人的生命权，那么一切其它权利都是空中楼阁。无端剥夺人的生命，或者肆意对人施加恐吓、虐待和折磨，就是用一种非人权的待人方式。[4]任由这种情况发生，个人权利就无从谈起。所以一般各国的刑法都将侵害他人生命权的罪行量刑最重。“生命权是一个人之所以被当作人类伙伴所必须享有的权利。”

First, due to the imbalance of social development and the diversity of moral norms, recognised by some kind of community rights, there is not enough reason is also applicable to other community is considered. Second, no matter how big differences social development and ethics, some of the minimum of all community must receive the unanimous support of human rights. To sum up, the human rights standard is the lowest, so to become common; Because is common, so also can only is the lowest.

第一，由于社会发展的不平衡性和道德规范的多样性，得到某种共同体认可的权利，没有足够的理由被认为也同样适用于其他共同体。第二，无论社会发展和道德规范存在多么大的差异，一些最低限度的人权必须得到所有共同体的一致拥护。总结起来，人权标准是最低的，所以才能成为普遍的；因为是普遍的，所以也只能是最低的。

Laws against torture[edit]

On 10 December 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 5 states, \or degrading treatment or punishment.\Since that time, a number of other international treaties have been adopted to prevent the use of torture. The most notable treaties relating to torture are theUnited Nations Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols I and II of 8 June 1977.[54] United Nations Convention Against Torture[edit]

The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment came into force in June 1987. The most relevant articles are Articles 1, 2, 3, and the first paragraph of Article 16. Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term \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. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application. Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return (\are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. Article 16

1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Note several points:

Article 1: Torture is \influences discussions on this area of international law. See the section Other conventions for more details on the ECHR ruling.

Article 2: There are \not break its treaty obligations\

Article 16: Obliges signatories to prevent \of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment\

As of May 23, 2014, 155 states are parties to the Convention against Torture.[57] Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture[edit]

The Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) entered into force on 22 June 2006 as an important addition to the UNCAT. As stated in Article 1, the purpose of the protocol is to \a system of regular visits undertaken by independent international and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\Each state ratifying the OPCAT, according to Article 17, is responsible for creating or maintaining at least one independent national preventive mechanism for torture prevention at the domestic level.[citation needed] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court[edit]

The Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), provides for criminal

prosecution of individuals responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The statute defines torture as \infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions\Under Article 7 of the statute, torture may be considered a crime against humanity \committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack\certain circumstances, be prosecuted as a war crime.[60]

The ICC came into existence on 1 July 2002[61] and can only prosecute crimes committed on or after that date.[62] The court can generally exercise jurisdiction only in cases where the accused is a national of a state party to the Rome Statute, the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party, or a situation is referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council.[63] The court is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes.[64] Primary responsibility to investigate and punish crimes is therefore reserved to individual states.[65]

Geneva Conventions[edit]

The four Geneva Conventions provide protection for people who fall into enemy hands. The conventions do not clearly divide people into combatant and non-combatant roles. The conventions refer to:

\

\no work of a military character\

\of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces\

\resistance movements\

\of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power\

\who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces\

\arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units\

The first (GCI), second (GCII), third (GCIII), and fourth (GCIV) Geneva Conventions are the four most relevant for the treatment of the victims of conflicts. All treaties states in Article 3, in similar wording, that in a non-international armed conflict, \including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms... shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.\particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture\dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment\

GCI covers wounded combatants in an international armed conflict. Under Article 12, members of the armed forces who are sick or wounded \

They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments\

GCII covers shipwreck survivors at sea in an international armed conflict. Under Article 12, persons \are at sea and who are wounded, sick or shipwrecked, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances, it being understood that the term \means shipwreck from any cause and includes forced landings at sea by or from aircraft. Such persons shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Parties to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments\

GCIII covers the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs) in an international armed conflict. In particular, Article 17 says that \be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.\\Person\status under GCIV. Captured combatants in an international armed conflict automatically have the protection of GCIII and are POWs under GCIII unless they are determined by a competent tribunal to not be a POW (GCIII Article 5).

GCIV covers most civilians in an international armed conflict, and says they are usually \Article 32, protected persons have the right to protection from \torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments...but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by non-combatant or military agents\Geneva Convention IV exemptions

GCIV provides an important exemption:

Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention [ie GCIV] as would ... be prejudicial to the security of such State ... In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity (GCIV Article 5)

Also, nationals of a State not bound by the Convention are not protected by it, and nationals of a neutral State in the territory of a combatant State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, cannot claim the protection of GCIV if their home state has normal diplomatic representation in the State that holds them (Article 4), as their diplomatic representatives can take steps to protect them. The requirement to treat persons with \not protected by the Convention.

The George W. Bush administration afforded fewer protections, under GCIII, to detainees in the \whether a person is a lawful combatant, he (or she) must be treated as a POW \has been determined by a competent tribunal\

an unlawful combatant, he is not considered a protected person under GCIII. However, if he is a protected person under GCIV he still has some protection under GCIV, and must be \humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention\Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions

There are two additional protocols to the Geneva Convention: Protocol I (1977), relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts and Protocol II (1977), relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. These clarify and extend the definitions in some areas, but to date many countries, including the United States, have either not signed them or have not ratified them.

Protocol I does not mention torture but it does affect the treatment of POWs and Protected Persons. In Article 5, the protocol explicitly involves \substitute\to monitor that the Parties to the conflict are enforcing the Conventions.[72] The protocol also broadens the definition of a lawful combatant in wars against \occupation, colonial domination and racist regimes\to include those who carry arms openly but are not wearing uniforms, so that they are now lawful combatants and protected by the Geneva Conventions—although only if the Occupying Power has ratified Protocol I. Under the original conventions combatants without a recognisable insignia could be treated as criminals, and potentially be executed. It also mentions spies, and defines who is a mercenary. Mercenaries and spies are considered an unlawful combatant, and not protected by the same conventions.

Protocol II \and supplements Article 3 [relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts] common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of application\or ceased to take part in hostilities is entitled to humane treatment. Among the acts prohibited against these persons are, \to the life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular murder as well as cruel treatment such as torture, mutilation or any form of corporal punishment\degrading treatment, rape, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault\and \to commit any of the foregoing acts\(Article 4.h).[73] Clauses in other articles implore humane treatment of enemy personnel in an internal conflict. These have a bearing on torture, but no other clauses explicitly mention torture. 法律禁止酷刑[编辑]

1948年12月10日联合国大会采用了世界人权宣言》(UDHR)。第五条声明“任何人不得加以酷刑,或施以残忍的、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或惩罚。”[53]从那时起,许多其他国际条约被采纳,防止使用酷刑。最著名的酷刑是相关的条约联合国禁止酷刑公约和1949年日内瓦公约和他们的额外的协议我和二世1977年6月8日。[54] 联合国禁止酷刑公约[编辑]

的联合国禁止酷刑公约和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚1987年6月生效。最相关的文章文章1、2、3、第十六条第一款的规定。 第一条

1。为本公约的目的,“酷刑”这个词意味着行为的严重疼痛或痛苦,无论是身体或精神,是故意造成等目的,对一个人从他或第三人获得信息或忏悔,惩罚他的行为或第三人承诺的嫌疑,或恐吓或强迫他或第三人,或基于任何理由任何形式的歧视,这种疼痛或痛苦时造成的煽动或同意或默许的政府官员或其他代理在一个人官方的能力。它不包括疼痛或痛苦只从,固有的或

偶然的合法的制裁。

2。本文是不影响任何国际文书或国家立法或可能包含更广泛的应用程序的规定。 第二条

1。各缔约国应采取有效的立法、行政、司法或其他措施以防止酷刑的行为在其管辖的任何领土。

2。没有任何特殊情况下,不管的状态战争或战争威胁,内部政治不稳定或任何其他公共应急,可以被作为理由酷刑。

3。一个从上司或公共机关可能不被调用的理由酷刑。 第三条

1。任何缔约国不得驱逐、返回(“refouler”)或引渡一个人到另一个状态,我们有大量的理由相信他会被受到虐待的危险。

2。的目的是确定是否有这样的理由,主管当局应考虑所有相关因素,包括在适用情况下,有关国家的存在一致的总值的模式,公然或大规模侵犯人权。 第十六条

1。各缔约国应采取防止在其管辖的任何领土其他行为的残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚不折磨我条所称,这种行为时犯下的煽动或同意或默许政府官员或其他的人表演,在官方的能力。特别是义务包含在文章10、11、12和13适用的替代引用折磨引用其他形式的残忍,不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚。 注意几点:

第一条:酷刑是“严重的疼痛或痛苦”。[55]的欧洲人权法庭(ECHR)影响讨论这一领域的国际法律。看到的部分其他约定ECHR执政的更多细节。

第二条:“没有任何特殊情况”,一个国家可以使用酷刑和不失其条约义务”。[56]

第十六条:要求签字人防止“行为残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或惩罚”,在其管辖的任何领土”。[注1][注2]

2014年5月23日,155个国家是禁止酷刑公约缔约方。[57] 可选的联合国禁止酷刑公约议定书[编辑]

的可选的禁止酷刑公约议定书(OPCAT)于2006年6月22日生效作为一种重要的缔约国。正如第一条中提到的,协议的目的是“建立一个系统,定期由独立的国际和国家机构人剥夺自由的地方,为了防止酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或惩罚。”[58]每个州批准OPCAT,根据第17条,至少负责创建或维护一个独立的国家预防酷刑国内一级预防的机制。[需要引证]

国际刑事法院罗马规约》[编辑]

主要文章:国际刑事法庭

的罗马规约,建立了国际刑事法庭(ICC),提供个人负责的刑事起诉种族灭绝,战争罪,反人类罪。条例将酷刑定义为“故意的严重疼痛或痛苦,无论是身体或精神,在一个人保管或控制下的指责;除了酷刑不包括疼痛或痛苦只从,固有的或偶然的,合法的制裁”。7条法令下,刑讯逼供可能被认为是反人类罪”时承诺的一部分针对任何平民人口的大规模、系统性的攻击,攻击”的知识。[59]第八条法令的规定,折磨也可能,在某些情况下,作为一个战争罪而被起诉。[60] 国际刑事法庭来到存在2002年7月1日[61年],只能起诉犯罪或之后的日期。[62年]法院通常可以锻炼管辖范围内只有在这种情况下,被告是一个国家的《罗马规约》的缔约国,所谓的犯罪发生在缔约国的领土,或情况是指法院的联合国安理会.[63年]法院是为了补充现有的国家司法系统:它可以行使管辖权,只有当国家法院不愿或无法调查或起诉此类犯罪。[64年]主要责任调查和惩罚犯罪因此保留各州。[65年]

日内瓦公约[编辑]

这四个日内瓦公约提供保护的人落入敌人手中。约定不明确将人分成战斗和非战斗的角色。惯例是指:

“受伤和生病的战士或非战斗人员”

“平民没有参加战争的人,和谁,在他们居住的区域,执行任何工作的军事角色”[66年]

“武装部队的成员冲突的一方以及民兵组织的成员或志愿者队形成这样的武装力量的一部分”

“其他民兵组织的成员和其他志愿者队的成员,包括那些有组织的抵抗运动\“常规武装力量成员自称效忠政府或权威不被拘留的权力”

“人陪军队没有实际成员,如民用军用飞机工作人员的成员,战地记者,供应承包商,工党成员单位和服务负责军队的福利”

”non-occupied领土的居民,他对敌人的方法自然地拿起武器抵抗入侵部队,没有时间形成自己变成常规武装单位”。[67年]

的第一个(GCI),第二个(GCII),第三(GCIII),第四(GCIV)日内瓦公约的四个最相关的处理冲突的受害者。所有条约州第三条,类似的措辞,在国际性武装冲突,“人没有积极参与敌对行动,包括军队放下武器的人……在任何情况下都应得到人道对待。“这项条约还规定,不得有任何“暴力的生活和人,特别是各种各样的谋杀,切割残酷的治疗和折磨”或“暴行在个人尊严,特别是羞辱和有辱人格的待遇”。[68年][69年][70年][71年]

GCI涵盖了受伤的士兵在国际武装冲突。第十二条下,武装部队的成员谁生病或受伤”在任何情况下都应当得到尊重和保护。应当受到人道待遇,关心党的冲突的力量,没有任何的不良区分建立在性别、种族、国籍、宗教信仰、政治观点,或者其他类似的标准。任何企图在他们的生活,或暴力的人,应严格禁止;特别是,他们不得杀害或消灭,受到酷刑或生物实验”。 海上GCII覆盖海难幸存者在国际武装冲突。第十二条下,人“在海上是谁,谁是受伤,生病或海难,应当尊重和保护在所有情况下,它被理解,术语“海难”意味着沉船从任何原因,包括在海上迫降或飞机。这样的人应当人道地对待,照顾各方的冲突的力量,没有任何的不良区分建立在性别、种族、国籍、宗教信仰、政治观点,或者其他类似的标准。任何企图在他们的生活,或暴力的人,应严格禁止;特别是,他们不得杀害或消灭,受到酷刑或生物实验”。

GCIII覆盖的治疗战俘(战俘)在国际武装冲突。特别是,第十七条说“没有身体或精神折磨,也没有任何其他形式的强迫、可能造成在战俘从中获得任何形式的任何信息。战俘拒绝回答可能不是威胁,侮辱或暴露于不愉快的或不利的任何形式的治疗。“战俘地位下GCIII豁免远少于“人”状态下GCIV保护。捕获的战士在国际武装冲突下自动保护GCIII,战俘GCIII除非他们由主管法庭不是一个战俘(GCIII文章5)。

GCIV涵盖了大部分平民在国际武装冲突,并表示他们通常“受保护的人”(见豁免部分后立即这对于那些不)。第三十二条下,保护人员有权保护从“谋杀、酷刑、肉体惩罚,切割和医学或科学实验…而且任何其他措施的残暴行为是否适用于非战斗军事代理人”。 日内瓦公约第四豁免

GCIV提供了一个重要的豁免:

哪里的领土冲突的一方,后者是满足个人保护的人绝对是怀疑或从事敌对活动的安全状态,这样的个人不得有权要求这些权利和特权在当前会议(即GCIV)将…偏见的这种状态的安全……在每种情况下,不过这样的人应当是人类对待(GCIV第五条)

另外,公民的国家不受公约不保护它,和公民的一个中立的国家领土的战斗状态,和公民co-belligerent状态,不能保护GCIV如果他们家乡已经正常外交代表的国家,他们(第四条),作为其外交代表可以采取措施保护它们。待人的要求与“人类”意味着它仍然禁止酷刑个人不受公约保护。

的乔治?布什(George w . Bush)政府提供更少的保护,在GCIII,在押人员的“反恐战争“编纂”的法律地位非法战斗”。如果有一个问题,一个人是否是一个合法的战斗,他(或她)必须被视为一个战俘,直到他们的身份已经由一个主管法庭”(GCIII文章5)。如果法庭决定,他是一名非法战斗人员,GCIII下他不被认为是一个保护的人。然而,如果他是一个受保护的人在GCIV他仍有一些保护GCIV,而且必须“对待人类,在审判的情况下,不应被剥夺的权利公约”规定的公平和定期试验(GCIV文章5)。[注3] 日内瓦公约的附加议定书

有两个附加议定书日内瓦公约:协议我(1977),有关保护国际武装冲突的受害者协议二世(1977),关于保护国际性武装冲突的受害者。这些澄清和扩展定义在某些领域,但迄今为止许多国家,包括美国在内,要么没有签署或没有批准。

协议我没有提到折磨但它确实影响战俘的待遇和保护的人。在第五条,协议明确涉及“任命权力和保护他们的替代品”监控,冲突双方约定执行。[72年]协议也扩大合法的战斗在战争的定义“外星人占领,殖民统治和种族主义政权”包括那些公开携带武器,但不穿制服,所以他们现在合法的战士和保护的日内瓦Conventions-although只有在佔领权批准协议。根据最初的约定战士没有一个公认的标志可以被视为罪犯,并可能被执行。它还提到间谍,定义一个雇佣兵。雇佣兵和间谍被认为是非法的战士,而不是保护相同的约定。

协议二世“开发和补充第三条关于保护国际性武装冲突的受害者)1949年8月12日日内瓦公约常见无需修改应用程序的现有条件”(第1条)。不参加或者停止参加敌对行动有权人道对待。行为中禁止对这些人”,暴力的生活,健康和身体或精神健康的人,特别是谋杀以及残忍的酷刑等治疗,切除或任何形式的体罚”(4.条),“暴行在个人尊严,特别是羞辱和有辱人格的待遇、强奸、强迫卖淫和任何形式的强暴猥亵罪”(第4.条e),和“威胁提交任何上述行为”(第4.条h)。[73年]条款在其他文章恳求人道对待敌人人员内部冲突。这些在酷刑,但没有其他条款明确提及酷刑。 其他约定

按照可选的联合国标准的最小规则治疗的囚犯(1955), \体罚,惩罚,放置在一个黑暗的细胞,和所有的残忍、不人道或有辱人格的惩罚应完全禁止作为纪律惩罚犯罪。”[74年]的公民权利和政治权利国际公约》(1966年12月16日),明确禁止酷刑和“残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚”签署。[75年] 欧洲协议

第四条的欧盟基本权利宪章》禁止酷刑。

在1950年的冷战,参与的成员国欧洲委员会签署了欧洲人权公约。该条约的基础上UDHR。它包括提供法院解释条约,和第三条“禁止酷刑”表示;“没有人不受酷刑或不人道或有辱人格的待遇或惩罚。”[76年]

在1978年,欧洲人权法庭裁定五个技术的“感官剥夺“没有酷刑在欧洲人权公约》第三条,不过是“不人道或有辱人格的待遇”[77年](见由英国使用酷刑的指控详情)。这种情况下发生9年前联合国禁止酷刑公约生效,并影响思考什么是酷刑。[78年]

1987年11月26日的成员国欧洲委员会,会议斯特拉斯堡通过了欧洲防止酷刑公约和不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚(ECPT)。两个附加议定书修订公约,2002年3月1日生效。该公约建立的委员会预防酷刑监督遵守其规定。 泛美公约

的美洲预防和惩治酷刑公约目前,17个国家批准的美洲自1987年2月28日生效,定义了酷刑比联合国禁止酷刑公约滔滔不绝。

为本公约的目的,应当理解为酷刑行为故意表现,身体或精神痛苦或苦难是对一个人的刑事调查的目的,作为恐吓的手段,个人应得的惩罚,作为预防措施,处罚,或用于任何其他目的。折磨,还应理解为方法的使用在一个人打算消灭个性的受害者或减少他的身体或精神能力,即使他们并不会导致身体疼痛或精神痛苦。

刑讯逼供的概念不包括身体或精神上的痛苦或痛苦的固有的或完全合法的措施的结果,只要他们不包括行为的性能或使用的方法在本文中引用。[79年] 反酷刑条约的监督[编辑]

的伊斯坦布尔的协议一个联合国的官方文档,第一组国际指南文档的酷刑和它的后果。它在1999年成为联合国官方文件。

本法规定的OPCAT,2006年6月22日生效独立国际和国家机构经常访问的地方人们剥夺自由,防止酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚。每个州批准了OPCAT,根据第17条,至少负责创建或维护一个独立的国家预防酷刑国内一级预防的机制。

欧洲委员会预防酷刑,理由1条欧洲防止酷刑公约,州”,通过访问,检查治疗的人剥夺自由,以加强,如果有必要,保护这样的人从酷刑和不人道或有辱人格的待遇或惩罚”。[80年]

在日内瓦公约的缔约国之间的武装冲突和另一方的代表国际红十字会(ICRC)监控遵守日内瓦公约的签署国,其中包括监控使用酷刑。人权组织,例如国际特赦组织,世界组织反对酷刑,预防协会酷刑工作积极全世界停止使用酷刑和发布报告任何他们认为是酷刑活动。[81年] 市政法律[编辑]

州批准了联合国禁止酷刑公约有一个条约义务包括规定成吗市政法律。许多州因此正式禁止酷刑的法律。然而,这样的法理法律规定绝不是一个证明,事实上的,签署国家不使用酷刑。 为了防止酷刑,许多法律制度对反对自证其罪在处理犯罪嫌疑人或明确禁止过度的力量。 英格兰在约1640(除???废除了刑讯逼供刑罚的强项等由于显示本身苏格兰,英格兰只有1772年废除),1708年,普鲁士1740年,丹麦大约在1770年,俄罗斯在1774年,奥地利和波兰立陶宛联邦1776年1776年1776年,意大利,法国,巴登1831年,日本在1873年。[82年][83年][84年]

最后一个欧洲地区废除法律酷刑是葡萄牙(1828)和广州格拉鲁斯在瑞士(1851)。

1789年法国宣言的人与公民的权利的宪法价值,禁止提交怀疑任何困难没有必要获得他或她的人。成文法明确使酷刑犯罪。此外,成文法禁止警察或者法官审问嫌疑犯宣誓。

随着美国宪法认识到国际习惯法,或者是法律的国家,美国外国人侵权索赔法还提供了法律补救措施在美国酷刑的受害者。特别地,行刑者的法律地位的美国,1980年由一位著名的法律决定,Filartiga诉Pena-Irala,630 F。2 d 876(1980),是,“行刑者,喜欢海盗和奴隶贩子在他之前,humani generis,全人类的敌人。”[85年] 排除在严刑拷打下获得的证据[编辑]

最近的问题在严刑拷打下获得的证据的使用出现了与所谓的起诉反恐战争在英国和美国。 联合王国[编辑]

2011年9月,英国在海外参与酷刑是绝密文件的挖掘人权观察在利比亚。的首席执行官免于酷刑基思最好表示:“如果证实,他们显示了军情六处从事反恐主管与卡扎菲的前情报局长摇尾乞怜的对话,穆萨库萨,“高兴”的英国是如何帮助实现他的手利比亚异见人士Abdel Hakim贝勒哈吉”免于酷刑的网站。在一次下议院讨论2009年7月7日,议员大卫·戴维斯指责英国政府外包酷刑,通过允许Rangzieb Ahmed离开这个国家(尽管他们的证据面前,他后来被判为恐怖主义)到巴基斯坦,说情报局英国情报机构获得批准的折磨艾哈迈德。戴维斯进一步指责政府试图呕吐Ahmed,阻止他来推进他的指控,他被囚禁后回到英国。他说,“所谓的要求,降低他的酷刑的指控:如果他这么做了,他们让他的句子,可能给他一些钱。如果这个请求放弃酷刑

情况是真的,它实在是巨大的。至少是一个犯罪的滥用权力和资金按照政府的竞争战略,并在最坏的情况下串谋妨碍司法公正”。[86年]

2003年,英国驻美大使乌兹别克斯坦,克雷格?默里表示,这是“错误使用酷刑”上收集到的信息。[87年]一致上议院判断2005年12月8日证实了这一立场。他们统治,在英国法律传统,“酷刑和水果”不能在法庭上使用。[88年]但因此获得的信息可以用于英国警察和安全服务”,那将是荒谬的让他们无视信息定时炸弹,如果它被酷刑采购。”[89年]上议院法官因此驳回担心折磨所获取的信息的有效性,这表达了各种安全人员和人权活动人士。

穆雷的指控并没有导致任何调查他的雇主,英国外交部,他辞职是给予纪律处分在2004年反对他。外交和联邦事务部本身正在调查国家审计署因为遭人受害,欺负和恐吓自己的员工。[90年]

穆雷后来说,他觉得他无意中偶然发现了什么被称为代理“酷刑”。[91年]他认为西方国家人们搬到政权和国家在那里知道,酷刑,将提取的信息,提供给他们。[需要引证]

穆雷,他知道从2002年8月,美国中央情报局在押人员塔什干从阿富汗巴格拉姆机场,移交乌兹别克斯坦安全服务(SNB)。我认为,这些都是乌兹别克人——可能是一个错误的假设。我知道美国中央情报局被瑞士央行从后续的审讯获得情报。”他接着说,他当时不知道,任何non-Uzbek公民被空运到乌兹别克斯坦和虽然他研究报告由几个记者和发现他们的报告可信的在这个问题上他不是第一手的权威。[92年] 美国[编辑]

在英国,美国法律禁止使用非法获得的证据或被迫在美国法庭。美国包括保护反对自证其罪第五修正案对其美国联邦宪法,进而作为的基础米兰达警告执法人员问题,个人被逮捕。此外,美国宪法的第八修正案禁止使用“残酷和不寻常的惩罚,”被广泛解读为禁止酷刑。最后,18事项§2340[93年]>。定义和禁止酷刑美国以外的国家。

2008年5月,苏珊?克劳福德官方监督起诉之前在关塔那摩湾的军事法庭,拒绝审判的案例参考卡赫塔因为她说,“我们折磨[他]”。[94年][95年]克劳福德说,技术的组合与明确的医疗后果相当于酷刑的法律定义,,酷刑“污染的一切。”[94年] 在2010年纽约的审判艾哈迈德·凡盖谁是共谋的指控轰炸美国驻坦桑尼亚和肯尼亚大使馆,Lewis Kaplan法官判决证据胁迫下了不可接受的。[96年]执政党排除一个重要证人,他的名字已经从被告在胁迫下提取。[97年]陪审团宣告他280指控和定罪的唯一的阴谋。[96年][97年]

Aspects of torture[edit]

Ethical arguments regarding torture[edit]

Main article: Ethical arguments regarding torture

Torture has been criticized on humanitarian and moral grounds, on the grounds that evidence extracted by torture is unreliable, and because torture corrupts institutions that tolerate it.[99] Besides degrading the victim, torture debases the torturer: American advisors alarmed at torture by their South Vietnamese allies early in the Vietnam War concluded that \his officers and men to fall in to these vices [they] would pursue them for their own sake, for the perverse pleasure they drew from them.\The consequent degeneracy destroyed discipline and morale: \it.\

Organizations like Amnesty International argue that the universal legal prohibition is based on a

universal philosophical consensus that torture and ill-treatment are repugnant, abhorrent, and immoral.[101] But since shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks there has been a debate in the United States about whether torture is justified in some circumstances. Some people, such as Alan M. Dershowitz and Mirko Bagaric, have argued the need for information outweighs the moral and ethical arguments against torture.[102][103] However, after coercive practices were banned, interrogators in Iraq saw an increase of 50 percent more high-value intelligence. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the American commander in charge of detentions and interrogations, stated \rapport-based interrogation that recognizes respect and dignity, and having very well-trained interrogators, is the basis by which you develop intelligence rapidly and increase the validity of that intelligence.\Others including Robert Mueller, FBI Director since 5 July 2001, have pointed out that despite former Bush Administration claims thatwaterboarding has \a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks\government through what supporters of the techniques call \a single attack and no one has come up with a documented example of lives saved thanks to these techniques.[105][106] On 19 June 2009, the US government announced that it was delaying the scheduled release of declassified portions of a report by the CIA Inspector General that reportedly cast doubt on the effectiveness of the \interrogation\techniques employed by CIA interrogators, according to references to the report contained in several Bush-era Justice Department memos declassified in the Spring of 2009 by the US Justice Department.[107][108][109]

The ticking time bomb scenario, a thought experiment, asks what to do to a captured terrorist who has placed a nuclear time bomb in a populated area. If the terrorist is tortured, he may explain how to defuse the bomb. The scenario asks if it is ethical to torture the terrorist. A 2006 BBC poll held in 25 nations gauged support for each of the following positions:[110]

Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives.

Clear rules against torture should be maintained because any use of torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights.

An average of 59% of people worldwide rejected torture. However there was a clear divide between those countries with strong rejection of torture (such as Italy, where only 14% supported torture) and nations where rejection was less strong. Often this lessened rejection is found in countries severely and frequently threatened by terrorist attacks. E.g., Israel, despite its Supreme Court outlawing torture in 1999, showed 43% supporting torture, but 48% opposing, India showed 37% supporting torture and only 23% opposing.[111]

Within nations there is a clear divide between the positions of members of different ethnic groups, religions, and political affiliations, sometimes reflecting distinctions between groups considering themselves threatened or victimized by terror acts and those from the alleged perpetrator groups. For example, the study found that among Jews in Israel 53% favored some degree of torture and only 39% wanted strong rules against torture while Muslims in Israel were overwhelmingly against any use of torture, unlike Muslims polled elsewhere. Differences in general political views also can matter. In one 2006 survey by the Scripps Center at Ohio University, 66% of Americans who identified themselves as strongly Republican supported torture, whereas 24% of those who identified themselves as strongly Democratic.[112] In a 2005 U.S. survey 72% of American Catholics supported the use of torture in some circumstances compared to 51% of American

secularists.[113] A Pew survey in 2009 similarly found that the religiously unaffiliated are the least likely (40 percent) to support torture, and that the more a person claims to attend church, the more likely he or she is to condone torture; among racial/religious groups, white evangelical Protestants were far and away the most likely (62 percent) to support inflicting pain as a tool of interrogation.[114]

Demonstration of waterboarding at a street protest during a visit byCondoleezza Rice to Iceland, May 2008

A Today/Gallup poll \that sizable majorities of Americans disagree with tactics ranging from leaving prisoners naked and chained in uncomfortable positions for hours, to trying to make a prisoner think he was being drowned\

There are also different attitudes as to what constitutes torture, as revealed in an ABC News/Washington Post poll, where more than half of the Americans polled thought that techniques such as sleep deprivation were not torture.[116]

In practice, so-called \that did not involve the \and public debate. In April 2009 a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist stated that the Bush administration applied pressure on interrogators to use the \interrogation\techniques on detainees to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime.[117] The purported link between al Qaida and Hussein's regime, which has been disproven,[118] was a key political justification for the Iraq War. On 13 May 2009, former NBC News investigative producer Robert Windrem reported, as confirmed by former Iraq Survey Group leader Charles Duelfer, that the Vice President's Office suggested that an interrogation team led by Duelfer waterboard an Iraqi prisoner suspected of knowing about a relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam.[119][120]

On 14 February 2010, in an appearance on ABC's This Week, Vice-President Dick Cheney reiterated his support of waterboarding and \interrogation\techniques for captured terrorist suspects, saying, \was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program.\

Pressed by the BBC in 2010 on his personal view of waterboarding, Presidential Advisor Karl Rove said: \They’re appropriate, they're in conformity with our international requirements and with US law.\

A 15-month investigation by the Guardian and BBC Arabic, published on March 2013, disclosed that the US sent a veteran of the dirty wars in Central America to oversee Iraqi commando units involved in acts of torture during the American-led occupation. These American citizens could theoretically be tried by the International Criminal Court even though the US is not a signatory. But it would have to be referred by the UN security council and, given that the US has a veto on the council, this hypothesis is very improbable.\Reprieve Legal Director Kat Craig said: \latest exposé of human rights abuses shows that torture is endemic to US foreign policy; these are considered and deliberate acts, not only sanctioned but developed by the highest echelons of US security service.\

Utilitarian arguments against torture[edit]

There is a strong utilitarian argument against torture; namely, that there is simply no scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness.[124]

The lack of scientific basis for the effectiveness of torture as an interrogation techniques is summarized in a 2006 Intelligence Science Board report titled \INFORMATION, Interrogation: Science and Art, Foundations for the Future\

On the other hand, some some have pointed to some specific cases where torture has elicited true information.[126]

Rejection of torture[edit]

A famous example of rejection of the use of torture was cited by the Argentine National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons in whose report, Italian general Carlo Alberto Dalla Chiesa was reputed to have said in connection with the investigation of the disappearance of prime minister Aldo Moro, \can survive the loss of Aldo Moro. It would not survive the introduction of torture.\

Incrimination of innocent people[edit]

One documented effect of torture is that its victims will say or do anything to escape the situation, including untrue \and implication of others without genuine knowledge, who may well then be tortured in turn. That information may have been extracted from the Birmingham Six through the use of police beatings was counterproductive because it made the convictions unsound as the confessions were worthless. Secrecy[edit]

Before the emergence of modern policing, torture was an important aspect of policing and the use of it was openly sanctioned and acknowledged by the authority. The Economist magazine proposed that one of the reasons torture endures is that torture does indeed work in some instances to extract information/confession, if those who are being tortured are indeed guilty.[128] Depending on the culture, torture has at times been carried on in silence (official denial), semi-silence (known but not spoken about), or openly acknowledged in public (to instill fear and obedience).

In the 21st century, even when states sanction their interrogation methods, torturers often work outside the law. For this reason, some prefer methods that, while unpleasant, leave victims alive and unmarked. A victim with no visible damage may lack credibility when telling tales of torture, whereas a person missing fingernails or eyes can easily prove claims of torture. Mental torture, however can leave scars just as deep and long-lasting as physical torture.[129] Professional torturers in some countries have used techniques such as electrical shock, asphyxiation, heat, cold, noise, and sleep deprivation, which leave little evidence, although in other contexts torture frequently results in horrific mutilation or death. However the most common and prevalent form of torture worldwide in both developed and under-developed countries is beating.[130] 使用酷刑[编辑]

“最近”的背景下,本文从1948年12月10日,当联合国大会采用了世界人权宣言》. 折磨者[编辑]

1984年使用的定义联合国禁止酷刑公约,酷刑是造成的煽动或同意或默许政府官员或其他的人表演,在官方的能力。[98年] 伦理争论关于酷刑[编辑] 主要文章:伦理争论关于酷刑

酷刑在人道主义和道德层面上被批评,理由是证据提取逼供是不可靠的,而且因为酷刑腐败机构容忍它。[99年]除了有辱人格的受害者,酷刑智囊虐待者:美国顾问警告在南越盟友的酷刑越南战争得出的结论是,“如果一个指挥官让他的官兵在这些恶习[他们]会追求他们自己的缘故,他们从他们的乐趣。”[100年]随之而来的简并摧毁了纪律和士气:“(一)士兵得知他存在维护法律和秩序,不破坏它。”[100年]

组织像国际特赦组织认为,普遍的法律禁止基于普世哲学共识,酷刑和虐待是令人厌恶的,可恶的,不道德的。[101年]但由于后不久2001年9月11日的袭击已经有了辩论在美国是否刑讯在某些情况下是合理的。有些人,等艾伦·m·德肖维茨和米尔科Bagaric,认为需要的信息超过了道德和伦理反对酷刑。[102年][103年]然而,在强制性的行为被禁止,审讯人员在伊拉克看到增加了50%的高价值的情报。少校创。杰弗里·d·米勒,美国指挥官负责拘留和审讯,表示“rapport-based审讯,认识到尊重和尊严,有训练有素的审讯人员,迅速开发智力的基础,增加,智力的有效性。”[104年]其他的包括罗伯特·米勒2001年7月5日以来,美国联邦调查局局长,指出,尽管前布什政府声称水刑“中断的攻击,也许很多攻击”,他们不相信证据获得美国政府通过技术的支持者所说的“强化审讯“破坏了一个攻击,没有人想出了一个记录生命救了由于这些技术的例子。[105年][106年]2009年6月19日,美国政府宣布推迟的计划版本解密的中情局检察长的报告的一部分,据报道质疑“强化审讯技术的有效性受雇于中情局审讯人员,根据引用报告中包含几个布什时代的司法部备忘录解密由美国司法部在2009年的春天。[107年][108年][109年]

的定时炸弹的场景,一个思想实验问该怎么办,抓获恐怖分子已将一个核定时炸弹在一个人口稠密区域。如果折磨恐怖分子,他或许可以解释如何化解炸弹。问的场景是道德的折磨恐怖分子。一个2006英国广播公司调查在25个国家举行测量支持以下职位:[110年]

恐怖分子构成这样一个极端的威胁,各国政府应该允许使用某种程度的折磨,如果可能获得信息,拯救无辜的生命。

明确的规则禁止酷刑应该保持因为任何使用酷刑是不道德的,会削弱国际人权。

全球平均59%的人拒绝了酷刑。然而这些国家之间有一个清晰的划分具有强烈拒绝折磨(比如意大利,只有14%支持酷刑)和国家拒绝那么强势。这常常减少排斥在国家严重,经常受到恐怖袭击的威胁。如。,以色列,尽管最高法院在1999年取缔酷刑,显示,43%支持酷刑,但反对48%,印度显示,37%支持酷刑和只有23%的人反对。[111年]

在国家有明显分歧的位置不同民族的成员,宗教,和政治倾向,有时反映区分团体考虑自己威胁或受害的恐怖行为和那些所谓的罪犯组。例如,研究发现,在犹太人在以色列53%支持某种程度的折磨,只有39%希望强大的规则禁止酷刑而穆斯林绝大多数以色列人反对任何使用酷刑,与穆斯林调查。一般的政治观点的差异也可以。在一个由俄亥俄大学斯克里普斯中心2006年的调查,66%的美国人认为自己强烈的共和党支持酷刑,而24%的人认为自己强烈的民主。[112年]在2005年美国的一项调查72%的美国天主教徒支持使用酷刑相比在某些情况下51%的美国世俗主义者。[113年]2009年的皮尤调查同样发现,宗教信仰者是最不可能支持酷刑(40%),而更多的人声称去教堂,他或她越有可能容忍酷刑;种族/宗教团体,在白人福音派新教徒远(62%)最容易造成疼痛审讯的工具支持。[114年]

今天/盖洛普民意测验”等手段发现,相当多数的美国人不同意离开囚犯裸身被锁在不舒服的位置数小时,试图让一个囚犯认为他被淹死”。[115年]

也有不同的态度,什么是酷刑,在ABC新闻/华盛顿邮报透露调查,调查,超过一半的美国人认为等技术睡眠不足没有酷刑。[116年]

在实践中,所谓的“强化审讯”技术受雇于中情局的情况下,不涉及的“定时炸弹”民意调查和公开辩论的主题。2009年4月,一名前美国高级情报官员和一名前军队精神病医生表示,布什政

府施加压力在审讯人员使用“强化审讯”技术被拘留者找到证据表明基地组织之间的合作和前伊拉克独裁者萨达姆·侯赛因的政权。[117年]所谓的基地组织和萨达姆政权之间的联系被推翻,[118年]是一个重要的政治理由吗伊拉克战争。2009年5月13日,前NBC新闻调查制片人罗伯特·Windrem报道,证实了前伊拉克调查小组领导人查尔斯Duelfer,副总统办公室建议一个审讯小组由Duelfer水务局一名伊拉克囚犯涉嫌知道基地组织和萨达姆之间的关系。[119年][120年]

2010年2月14日,在美国广播公司的本周副总裁迪克·切尼重申了他的支持水刑和“强化审讯捕获的恐怖嫌犯”技术,说,“我一直强烈要求我们强化审讯程序。”[121年]

迫于英国广播公司在2010年在他的个人观点的水刑,总统的顾问卡尔?罗夫说:“我很自豪,我们保持世界比以前更安全,通过这些技术的使用。他们合适,符合我们的国际需求和美国法律。”[122年]

15个月的调查,《卫报》和BBC阿拉伯语,发表在2013年3月,透露,美国派出资深的肮脏的战争在中美洲监督伊拉克突击队单位参与行为的折磨领导的职业。这些美国公民理论上可以尝试的国际刑事法庭虽然美国没有签署。但这必须提到的联合国安理会考虑到美国否决委员会,这一假设是非常不可能的。”缓刑法务总监Kat克雷格说:“这一最新公开的侵犯人权表明,折磨流行来美国外交政策,这些被认为是故意的行为,不仅批准,由最高阶层的美国的安全服务.\年]

功利主义反对酷刑[编辑]

有一种强烈的功利主义反对酷刑;即没有科学证据支持其有效性。[124年]

缺乏科学依据的酷刑作为审讯手段的有效性,总结了情报科学委员会2006年的报告题为“,并信息,审讯:科学和艺术,基金会的未来”。[125年]

另一方面,一些人指出,一些特定情况下,刑讯逼供已经引起真正的信息。[126年] 拒绝的酷刑[编辑]

一个著名的例子,拒绝使用酷刑被阿根廷引用国家委员会的消失在其报告中,意大利卡洛?Dalla基被普遍认为有说与调查失踪的首相奥尔多·莫罗,“意大利可以生存奥尔多·莫罗的损失。将无法生存的引入酷刑。”[127年] 连累无辜的人[编辑]

折磨的一个记录的影响是它的受害者会说或做任何事情来逃避的情况,包括不真实的“告白”,暗示别人没有真正的知识,他很可能然后依次被折磨。这些信息可能被提取伯明翰六通过使用警察殴打是适得其反的,因为它使信念不健全的供词是毫无价值的。 保密[编辑]

现代警务的出现之前,酷刑是警务工作的一个重要方面和使用公开认可和承认的权威。《经济学人》杂志建议酷刑经久不衰的原因之一是,酷刑确实在某些情况下提取信息/忏悔,如果那些被折磨确实有罪。[128年]根据文化、虐待有时被认为是在沉默中进行(官方否认),semi-silence(但不是谈到),或在公共场合公开承认(灌输恐惧和服从)。

在21世纪,即使国家制裁他们的审讯方法,行刑者通常法律之外的工作。出于这个原因,一些喜欢的方法,而不愉快,离开活着,没有任何标记的受害者。受害者没有可见的损伤可能缺乏可信度时告诉折磨的故事,而一个人失踪的指甲或眼睛可以很容易地证明索赔的酷刑。精神上的折磨,但是可以留下疤痕和肉体折磨一样深刻和长久。[129年]专业者在一些国家使用技术,如电击,窒息,热,冷,噪音,和睡眠不足,这让小证据,虽然在其他上下文酷刑经常导致可怕的致残或死亡。然而最常见和普遍形式的折磨全球发达国家和欠发达国家跳动。[130年]

Psychological torture uses non-physical methods that cause psychological suffering. Its effects are not immediately apparent unless they alter the behavior of the tortured person. Since there is no international political consensus on what constitutes psychological torture, it is often overlooked,

denied, and referred to by different names.[citation needed]

Psychological torture is less well known than physical torture and tends to be subtle and much easier to conceal. In practice the distinctions between physical and psychological torture are often blurred.[citation needed] Physical torture is the inflicting of severe pain or suffering on a person. In contrast, psychological torture is directed at the psyche with calculated violations of psychological needs, along with deep damage to psychological structures and the breakage of beliefs underpinning normal sanity. Torturers often inflict both types of torture in combination to compound the associated effects.[citation needed]

Psychological torture also includes deliberate use of extreme stressors and situations such as mock execution, shunning, violation of deep-seated social or sexual norms and taboos, or extended solitary confinement. Because psychological torture needs no physical violence to be effective, it is possible to induce severe psychological pain, suffering, and trauma with no externally visible effects.[citation needed]

Rape and other forms of sexual abuse are often used as methods of torture for interrogative or punitive purposes.[132]

In medical torture, medical practitioners use torture to judge what victims can endure, to apply treatments that enhance torture, or act as torturers in their own right. Josef Mengele and Shirō Ishii were infamous during and after World War II for their involvement in medical torture and murder. Pharmacological torture is the use of drugs to produce psychological or physical pain or discomfort. Tickle torture is an unusual form of torture which nevertheless has been documented, and can be both physically and psychologically painful.[133][134][135][136]

心理上的折磨使用非物质引起心理的方法痛苦。它的影响并不明显,除非他们改变行为折磨的人。由于没有国际政治共识构成心理折磨,它常常被忽视,否认,被不同的名称。[需要引证] 心理折磨比肉体折磨鲜为人知,往往是微妙的,更容易隐藏。在实践中生理和心理折磨之间的差别往往是模糊的。[需要引证]肉体折磨造成的剧烈疼痛或痛苦的人。相比之下,心理折磨是针对计算违反心理需求的心理,以及深层心理结构损伤和信念支撑正常的破损理智。者往往造成这两种类型的酷刑结合化合物相关的影响。[需要引证]

心理上的折磨还包括蓄意使用极端的压力等情况下模拟执行,回避根深蒂固的社会或违反性规范和禁忌,或延长单独监禁。因为心理折磨不需要暴力是有效的,可以引起严重的心理痛苦,痛苦,和创伤没有外部可见的效果。[需要引证]

强奸和其他形式的性虐待通常用作疑问的方法折磨或惩罚性的目的。[132年] 在医疗酷刑、医疗从业者使用酷刑受害者能忍受什么判断,应用治疗,加强酷刑,或充当行刑者在自己的权利。蒙哥利和Shirō东洋石井臭名昭著的期间和之后吗第二次世界大战为他们参与医疗酷刑和谋杀。

药理折磨是使用药物产生心理或身体的疼痛或不适。逗折磨是一个不寻常的形式的折磨,不过被记录,并且可以从身体上和心理上的痛苦。

Effects[edit]

The consequences of torture reach far beyond immediate pain. Many victims suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which includes symptoms such as flashbacks (or intrusive thoughts), severe anxiety, insomnia, nightmares, depression and memory lapses. Torture victims often feel guilt and shame, triggered by the humiliation they have endured. Many feel that they have betrayed themselves or their friends and family. All such symptoms are normal human responses to abnormal and inhuman treatment.[137]

Organizations like Freedom from Torture and the Center for Victims of Torture try to help survivors of torture obtain medical treatment and to gain forensic medical evidence to obtain political asylum in a safe country and/or to prosecute the perpetrators.

Torture is often difficult to prove, particularly when some time has passed between the event and a medical examination, or when the torturers are immune from prosecution. Many torturers around the world use methods designed to have a maximum psychological impact while leaving only minimal physical traces. Medical and Human Rights Organizations worldwide have collaborated to produce theIstanbul Protocol, a document designed to outline common torture methods, consequences of torture, and medico-legal examination techniques. Typically deaths due to torture are shown in an autopsy as being due to \causes\like heart attack, inflammation, or embolism due to extreme stress.[138]

For survivors, torture often leads to lasting mental and physical health problems.

Physical problems can be wide-ranging, e.g. sexually transmitted diseases, musculo-skeletal problems, brain injury, post-traumatic epilepsy and dementia or chronic pain syndromes.

Mental health problems are equally wide-ranging; common are post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety disorder. Psychic deadness, erasure of intersubjectivity, refusal of meaning-making, perversion of agency, and an inability to bear desire constitute the core features of the post-traumatic psychic landscape of torture.[139]

The most terrible, intractable, legacy of torture is the killing of desire - that is, of curiosity, of the impulse for connection and meaning-making, of the capacity for mutuality, of the tolerance for ambiguity and ambivalence. For these patients, to know another mind is unbearable. To connect with another is irrelevant. They are entrapped in what was born(e) during their trauma, as they perpetuate the erasure of meaning, re-enact the dynamics of annihilation through sadomasochistic, narcissistic, paranoid, or self-deadening modes of relating, and mobilize their agency toward warding off mutuality, goodness, hope and connection. In brief, they live to prove death. And it is this perversion of agency and desire that constitutes the deepest post-traumatic injury, and the most invisible and pernicious of human-rights violations.[139]

On 19 August 2007, the American Psychology Association (APA) voted to bar participation, to intervene to stop, and to report involvement in a wide variety of interrogation techniques as torture, including \mock executions, simulated drowning, sexual and religious humiliation, stress positions or sleep deprivation\as well as \exploitation of prisoners' phobias, the use of mind-altering drugs, hooding, forced nakedness, the use of dogs to frighten detainees, exposing prisoners to extreme heat and cold, physical assault and threatening the use of such techniques against a prisoner or a prisoner's family.\

However, the APA rejected a stronger resolution that sought to prohibit “all psychologist involvement, either direct or indirect, in any interrogations at U.S. detention centers for foreign detainees or citizens detained outside normal legal channels.” That resolution would have placed the APA alongside the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association in limiting professional involvement in such settings to direct patient care. The APA echoed the Bush administration by condemning isolation, sleep deprivation, and sensory deprivation or over-stimulation only when they are likely to cause lasting harm.

Psychiatric treatment of torture-related medical problems might require a wide range of expertise and often specialized experience. Common treatments are psychotropic medication, e.g. SSRIantidepressants, counseling, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, family systems therapy and

physiotherapy.

See Psychology of torture for psychological impact, and aftermath, of torture. 酷刑的后果远远超出立即疼痛。许多受害者遭受创伤后应激障碍(PTSD),包括症状,如倒叙(或者侵入性思想),严重焦虑、失眠、恶梦、抑郁、记忆力衰退。酷刑受害者经常感到内疚和羞愧,引发了他们忍受的屈辱。很多觉得自己背叛了自己或他们的朋友和家人。所有这些症状是正常的人类对异常的反应和不人道的待遇。[137年]

组织像免于酷刑和中心酷刑的受害者试图帮助幸存者的酷刑获得医疗和获得法医医疗证据获得政治庇护在一个安全的国家和/或起诉肇事者。

酷刑通常很难证明,尤其是在一些时间之间传递事件和医学检查,或者当者免于起诉。世界各地许多者使用方法设计最大的心理影响而只留下最小物理痕迹。医疗和人权组织全球合作生产伊斯坦布尔的协议文档旨在概述常见的折磨方法,酷刑,后果和法医检验技术。通常死亡折磨尸检所示是由于“自然原因”像心脏病,炎症,或栓塞由于极端压力.[138年] 幸存者,酷刑经常导致持久的精神和身体健康问题。

可以广泛的物理问题,如。性传播疾病,musculo-skeletal问题,脑损伤、创伤后癫痫和痴呆或慢性疼痛综合征。

心理健康问题也同样广泛,常见的是创伤后应激障碍,抑郁和焦虑性障碍。精神无精打采,擦除的主体间性、拒绝它赋予的曲解机构,无法忍受欲望构成了核心功能的创伤后精神的折磨。[139年]

最可怕的,棘手的,遗留的酷刑杀害欲望——也就是说,出于好奇,冲动的连接,它赋予的相互关系的能力,对不确定性或模糊事物的承受力和矛盾心理。对于这些患者来说,知道另一个思想是难以忍受的。与另一个是无关紧要的。他们禁锢在出生(e)在他们的创伤,他们擦除延续的意义,再现毁灭的动力通过施受虐,自恋,偏执,或self-deadening模式有关,对规避相互关系,动员他们的机构,善良,希望和连接。总之,他们住死亡证明。正是这种反常的机构和欲望,构成受伤最深的创伤后,和侵犯人权的最看不见的和有害的。[139年]

2007年8月19日美国心理学协会(APA)投票禁止参与、干预制止,并报告参与审讯手段的各种酷刑,包括“使用模拟执行、模拟溺水、性和宗教的羞辱,压力位置或睡眠不足”,以及“剥削囚犯的恐惧症,改变思想的药物的使用,罩上强迫脱光,用狗吓唬囚犯,让囚犯在极热和极冷,物理攻击和威胁使用这些技术对囚犯或一个囚犯的家人。”[140年]

然而,APA拒绝了更强”决议,试图禁止所有心理学家参与,无论直接或间接,在任何审讯在美国拘留中心以外的外国囚犯或拘留公民正常的合法渠道。”,决议把APA与美国医学协会和美国精神病协会等专业限制参与设置直接病人护理。APA呼应了布什政府的谴责隔离,剥夺睡眠,感官剥夺或到过度刺激只有当他们可能会造成持久伤害。

精神病治疗torture-related医疗问题,可能需要一个广泛的专业知识和专业经验。常见的治疗方法是精神药物治疗,如。SSRI抗抑郁药,咨询,认知行为疗法,家庭系统治疗和物理治疗. 看到心理的折磨心理影响和后果,酷刑。

酷刑的定义[编辑]

第一条公约的酷刑的定义是:

行为的严重疼痛或痛苦,无论是身体或精神,是故意造成的对一个人从他获得或第三人等目的,信息或忏悔,惩罚他的行为或第三人承诺的嫌疑,或恐吓或强迫他或第三人,或基于任何理由任何形式的歧视,这种疼痛或痛苦时造成的煽动或同意或默许政府官员或其他的人表演,在官方的能力。它不包括疼痛或痛苦只从,固有的或偶然的合法的制裁。 ——禁止酷刑公约第1.1条

“固有的或偶然的合法制裁”保持模糊和广泛。它很难确定什么制裁是“固有的或偶然的合法制裁”在一个特定的法律制度和什么不是。公约的起草者们既不提供任何这样的决心也没有标准定义的??语???发现的性质不同于一个法律系统到另一个,他们会引起严重的公约缔约国之间的纠纷。建议参考,这些规则将会使问题更加复杂,因为它会赋予规则表面的法律约束力。这允许缔约国通过国内法律,允许酷刑的行为,他们认为在合法的制裁条款。然而,最广泛采用的合法制裁条款的解释是,它是指授权的制裁国际法。按照这个解释,只有授权的制裁国际法将属于这个排斥。合法制裁条款的解释没有应用程序和范围由作者广泛讨论,历史学家和学者。[5]

行为缺乏酷刑仍可能构成残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇在第十六条。 禁止酷刑和残酷和有辱人格的待遇[编辑]

第二条禁止酷刑公约,并要求各方采取有效措施,防止在其管辖的任何领土。这项禁令是绝对和non-derogable。“没有任何特殊情况”[6]可能被调用来证明酷刑,包括战争、战争威胁、内部政局不稳,公共应急,恐怖主义行为,暴力犯罪,或任何形式的武装冲突。[7]酷刑不能合理的保护公共安全或预防紧急情况.[7]既可以是合理的高级军官的命令或公共官员.[8]禁止酷刑下适用于所有地区的有效管辖,在其有效控制和保护所有的人,不论国籍或控制是如何被运用。[7]公约的生效以来,这绝对禁止已成为接受的原则国际习惯法.[7]

因为往往很难区分残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇和折磨,委员会认为第十六条禁止的同样绝对和non-derogable等治疗。[7]

我制定具体的义务部分的其他文章旨在实现这个绝对禁止通过阻止,调查和惩罚行为的折磨。[7]

禁止refoulement[编辑]

第三条禁止政党返回,引渡或refouling任何人状态”,我们有实质性的理由相信他会被遭受酷刑”的危险。[9]禁止酷刑委员会举行了,这种危险必须评估不仅对初始接收状态,而且国家的人可能随后驱逐,或引渡回来。[10] Main provisions[edit] Definition of torture[edit]

Article 1 of the Convention defines torture as:

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. — Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1

The words \in or incidental to lawful sanctions\remain vague and very broad. It is extremely difficult to determine what sanctions are 'inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions' in a particular legal system and what are not. The drafters of the Convention neither provided any criteria for making such determination nor did it define the terms. The nature of the findings would so differ from one legal system to another that they would give rise to serious disputes among the Parties to the Convention. It was suggested that the reference to such rules would make the issue more complicated, for it would endow the rules with a semblance of legal binding force. This allows state parties to pass domestic laws that permit acts of torture that they believe are

within the lawful sanctions clause. However, the most widely adopted interpretation of the lawful sanctions clause is that it refers to sanctions authorized by international law. Pursuant to this interpretation, only sanctions that are authorized by international law will fall within this exclusion. The interpretation of the lawful sanctions clause leaves no scope of application and is widely debated by authors, historians, and scholars alike.[5]

Actions which fall short of torture may still constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 16.

Ban on torture and cruel and degrading treatment[edit]

Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. \threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.[7] Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies.[7] Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials.[8] The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised.[7] Since the convention's entry into force, this absolute prohibition has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.[7]

Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, the Committee regards Article 16's prohibition of such treatment as similarly absolute and non-derogable.[7]

The other articles of part I lay out specific obligations intended to implement this absolute prohibition by preventing, investigating and punishing acts of torture.[7]

Ban on refoulement[edit]

Article 3 prohibits parties from returning, extraditing or refouling any person to a state \there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture\the initial receiving state, but also to states to which the person may be subsequently expelled, returned or extradited.[10]

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/4wf6.html