The International Crime of

Torture
 Submitted by: Sunidhi
Mehta
Submitted to: Mrs.
Riddell
Course Code: CLN 4U1
December 13, 2010

Human beings have certain rights that cannot be

taken away. To see that these rights are not being
violated, countries have various organizations that exist
for this sole principle. In Canada, the Canadian Civil
Liberties Association (CCLA) is an example of such an
organization. There is also an international organization
that has an exclusive purpose: to watch over the human
rights of the people of all nations. It is the United Nations
(UN). One of the many conventions of the UN is the UN
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL,
INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT
(UNCAT), which was passed in 1984. It declares:
“The prohibition on torture is well established
under international law. It is also unambiguous
and absolute. It is binding on all States in all
territories under their jurisdiction or effective
control…States must honour this prohibition
and vigorously combat the impunity of
perpetrators of torture. Those who conceive of
or authorize any form of torture and other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and
those who commit such acts, should not go
unpunished. Nor may any State condone
torture by a third party. This means that
 individuals must never be rendered to another
State if there is any danger that doing so may
subject them to torture.”(Un.org)

Nevertheless, many countries do apply torture as they

feel that it is an effective means of investigation and
would help to combat terrorism. Does it work? It can be
easily perceived that the use of torture is futile. Torture
produces erratic information. It is a slippery slope as
even its restricted use can only cause an outbreak, with
investigators trying to validate its utilization in other
cases as well. Torture also opposes the aim of the society
and government, which is to take care of their citizens,
not exploit their rights. That is why, countries should
adhere to the UNCAT and any perpetrators should be
penalized for straying.
Originally, torture’s main purpose is to extract
information from the terrorists. It is believed that this
information can be used to avert the next terrorist attack
and save the lives of thousands of innocents. However,
the information produced under torture is unreliable.
Neuroscientist Shane O’Mara of Trinity College in Dublin,
conducted a study that revealed the following:
“Extreme stress harms the brain’s frontal lobe
and is associated with production of false
memories. Studies have found that the hippo-
campus and prefrontal cortex, brain regions in-
tegral to memory, are affected by hormones
 activated by stress and sleep deprivation.
These hormones have been shown to have
harmful effects on memory”. (World-
science.net)

Consequently, torture methods like waterboarding and

sleep depravation (most-commonly used methods) put
pressure on the brain of the person being tortured and
produce hormones, which affect a person’s memory. Any
information given by them, then will be a product of a
confused mind and thus, untrustworthy. Furthermore, the
victim of torture will say anything to avoid the pain or
discomfort being inflicted on them. The US army
recognizes this fact by stating in their interrogation field
manual: “force can induce the source to say whatever he
thinks the interrogator wants to hear.” (Guardian.co.uk).
A retired CIA intelligence analyst puts forward the
question: “Have we not learned from our own soldiers
and airmen who, when tortured, using the very same
methods that the CIA employed, by the Chinese, North
Koreans, and Vietnamese, confessed to false atrocities? “
(Tampabay.com) His article discloses that the CIA
operatives are asked to admit false information if they
feel that they are in danger of being tortured. The
terrorists might also be asked by their superiors to do
the same. From the above three reasons, it can be
concluded that there is no guarantee of torture resulting
 Mehta, 4

in dependable information. Therefore, its use is

pointless.
Secondly, it is argued that once allowed in
exceptional circumstances, the use of torture will spread,
and we will find ourselves on a ‘slippery slope’ where
mistreatment is seen as normal, even expected. Through
the past, there have been examples of torture being
used in trivial cases. Florian Jessberger divulges one
such example in his article: Bad Torture – Good Torture?
The case was concerned with prosecution of German
police officers who ordered and threatened pain to be
inflicted on a suspected kidnapper who refused to reveal
the whereabouts of the child he had taken. (Journal of
International Criminal Justice 3 (2005): 1059-1073).
Kidnapping is not that serious crime. Though the torture
was not employed in this case, the intention was there. If
the torture is ever legalized, what would stop the police
officers from not implementing it. Gradually, torture
would be utilized in every criminal case, maybe even
theft. Torture is not an interrogation tool. It is just an
easy way to do it. Another example can be the
Mehinovic v. Vuckovic [2004]. This case is “a civil lawsuit
filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and
the Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA) on behalf
of four Bosnian Muslims who were tortured by a Bosnian
Serb soldiers at detention facilities across Bosnia-
Herzegovina.” (Ccrjustice.org) The victims were held in Mehta, 5
detention facilities across Bosnia-Herzegovina without
any formal charges or judicial proceedings. As the Serb
ethnic cleansing campaign was launched, Mr. Vuckovic
and others of the Serbian forces subjected each plaintiff
to various humiliating and distressing acts. The victims
were neither criminals nor a danger to the society, but
were still tortured. It was also witnessed by many, in
2003, that the US “government lawyers were trying to
find a legal justification for actions -- torture or cruel and
inhumane acts -- that are clearly illegal under U.S. and
international law” (Washingtonpost.com). Legalization of
torture for exceptional circumstances will only
encourage the lawyers to find justification of its use in
other cases as well. Torture is like an epidemic that can
only spread, unless a cure is found. In this case, the cure
is an absolute ban on torture.
Lastly, countries should adhere to the UNCAT
because torture is wrong. It negates the whole idea that
the society and the government exist to ensure that we
all are well protected. In 2001 the US NGO Physicians for
Human Rights published a manual on treating torture
survivors that noted:
 "...The aim of torture is to dehumanise the
victim, break his/her will, and at the same time
set horrific examples for those who come in
contact with the victim. In this way, torture can
break or damage the will and coherence of
entire communities." (Guardian.co.uk)

They believe that torture is an instrument used by the

government to silence the voice of the people. It is
Mehta, 6
effective in keeping people quiet even if they feel that
the actions of the government are wrong. People fear
that if they voice their objections they might be the next
victims of torture. It contradicts the fact that we are all
free citizens and can express our opinions without fear.
Five to six years back, a book – Truth and Torture – was
released by Mark Danner. Mr. Andrew Sullivan wrote an
article in New York Times, which reviewed the book. In
his article he mentions,
“Three Marines in Mahmudiya used an electric
transformer, forcing a detainee to 'dance' as
the electricity coursed through him…Al-Qatani
was forced to perform dog tricks on a leash,
was straddled by a female interrogator, forced
to dance with a male interrogator, told that his
mother and sister were whores, forced to wear
a woman's bra and thong on his head during
interrogation, and subjected to an un-muzzled
dog to scare him.”(Markdanner.com)

The various forms of torture inflicted on the people in

detention cells are so inhuman and degrading that they
make a person question the type of society he lives in.
The society is a symbol of esteem and protection not
humiliation. Also people should understand that “torture
can never be an instrument to fight terror, for torture is
an instrument of terror.” (Un.org) Torture is something
that is done by the terrorists. Hence, by practising
torture government is falling down to the level of the
terrorists. The application of torture reflects a depressing
image of the society. It contradicts with the goal or
purpose of the government too, which is to protect the
dignity of its citizens. In the end, the price of torture is
too high for any country to pay.
Conversely, there are some who argue that torture
is a useful tool, which can be effectively brought into
play to extract information from criminals especially in
cases of terrorism. New York Republican Rep. Peter King
suggested to those against torture, “If we have another
2000 people killed…go to the funeral and say, ‘Your son
was vaporized because we didn’t want to dump some
guy’s head under water for 30 seconds”(Politico.com).
This is the core of the other side’s arguments. Is it not
worth it to torture a criminal to save the lives of many
innocents? Numerous people would agree that in fact, it
is worth it. The society is divided into two sides: the Left
and the Right side. The Left side believes that torture is
futile. The Right side, on the other hand, considers “that
condemning torture is wrong because the people who
were tortured were just Terrorists – barely human – and
they deserve no defence, not even the force of law”
(Salon.com). There is some truth in this statement.
Terrorists do worse things than just torture. They murder
thousands of innocents in a blink of an eye. Surely, such
people are not human and if they are not, then why
should the human rights apply to them. They should not
be protected by law. They have no soul and for this
reason, should be tortured to save the lives of countless
innocent people. It all comes down to the question:
whose life do you value more – a criminal or an innocent
person? Martin Robbins of The Guardian looks towards
Alan Dershowitz who mentioned in the San Francisco
Chronicle back in 2001, “Everybody says they're
opposed to torture. But everyone would do it personally
if they knew it could save the life of a kidnapped child
who had only two hours of oxygen left before death. And
it would be the right thing to do” (Gaurdian.co.uk). Well,
there is no arguing the fact that many would torture the
criminal if that would mean that a child can be saved
and it might be the right thing too. If the person can be
so inhumane to plan such a death for a child, then no
one can disagree that he is not worthy of the human
rights protection. To conclude, some people judge torture
as an efficient method for gathering information. They
feel that we should do whatever we have to do if it
means that lives are being saved.
On the contrary, even if some situations seem to
demand the use of torture for valuable informantion, it
still is an attrocious way of doing it. The victim of torture
can be a criminal or a terrorist but that does not justify
its use. No one can decide the value of life and neither
can they choose whose rights to protect and whose to
violate. A person is permitted to craft all sorts of wily
arguments about why a statute does not apply
nonetheless, he cannot advocate committing a criminal
act prospectively and torture is a crime against
humanity. The UNCAT exists due to a reason and not
adhering to it would be foolish. Moreover, confessions
obtained while inflicting pain with the prospect of death
only lead the individual to simply provide whatever the
demanding party seeks. It is simply a matter of survival.
As a result, the information received may or may not be
the reality. The end product is the immediate production
of unreliable information that wastes valuable assets.
The effect in the long term would be country's inability
to improve human rights internationally. It would also
project a negative image of the country and can harm its
global standing.
In conclusion, torture though an attractive option is
a crime. Nor it is functional neither has any yielding
benefits. The outcome of torture is undependable
information. Also, it is a slippery slope. Its use can only
spread. Once permitted, investigators would deem it as
a fair game to use torture in order to collect information
or evidence from the criminals. It would be used in cases
as inconsequential as theft, since it is an easy way out.
Last of all, the application of torture in a society, imitates
a discouraging picture. The society and the government
are in place to ensure that everyone is sheltered and no
one’s dignity is wounded. They are laws in place that
support this ambition. Torture however, contradicts their
purpose. As a consequence, it should be banned from
the society. UNCAT: the UN’s convention against torture
states that “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” (Un.org). UN
promotes absolute ban on torture and for the above-
mentioned reasons countries should abide by the ban.