Torture

About: Torture is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 8173 publications have been published within this topic receiving 109895 citations.

Asylum seekers and refugees in Britain. The health of survivors of torture and organised violence.

Abstract: This is the last in a series of three articles This final article in the series describes how torture and organised violence may affect the health of survivors. A definition of torture, often used for asylum purposes, is shown in the box. It should be noted, however, that not all those who employ torture are acting in an official capacity. #### United Nations' definition of torture1 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 that 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 a public official acting in an official capacity. #### Summary points Torture and organised violence are still prevalent in many countries and have previously been experienced by some refugees in the United Kingdom The problems of survivors of torture and organised violence are not fully appreciated within the health services Survivors of torture may not volunteer their history due to feelings of guilt, shame, or mistrust; consideration must be given to building a relationship of trust Much can be done by health workers to alleviate the physical and psychological difficulties that face survivors Organised violence is defined as violence which has a political motive. Survivors of torture or organised violence have often been ill treated by government agents such as the army, police, or security forces or other groups perpetrating organised violence, including rebel groups. States have a duty to prevent, investigate, and prosecute cases of torture, but if those who are supposed to do this are themselves the …

Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment :

Abstract: The Secretariat has the honour to transmit to the Human Rights Council the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Nils Melzer, pursuant to Council resolution 25/13. In his report, the Special Rapporteur gives an overview of the activities of the mandate during the reporting cycle, including the country visits carried out by the former Special Rapporteur, Juan Mendez, up to the end of his tenure on 31 October 2016. The incumbent Special Rapporteur, who took up his appointment on 1 November, outlines his working methods, his thematic priorities and his vision for a meaningful anti-torture advocacy, in close cooperation with existing mechanisms.

Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Abstract: 1. The Committee welcomes the submission of the second report of Kyrgyzstan, in response to the list of issues prior to reporting (CAT/C/KGZ/Q/2). However, the Committee regrets that it was submitted 10 years late, which prevented the Committee from conducting an analysis of the implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in the State party following the consideration of its initial report in 1999.

The Power of Human Rights: International human rights norms and domestic change: conclusions

Abstract: Introduction In adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10,1948, the delegates to the United Nations General Assembly established a common set of principles against which the human rights practices of individual member states could be measured. Although these principles were not initially binding on UN member states, they included the seeds of an international legal system in the realm of human rights. In the meantime and following the Universal Declaration, a global human rights regime has emerged consisting of numerous international conventions, specific international organizations to monitor compliance, and regional human rights arrangements (see Alston 1992; Donnelly 1986; Forsythe 1991). Moreover, the global human rights regime has led to the emergence of a huge network of transnationally operating advocacy coalitions and international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs; see Brysk forthcoming; Keck and Sikkink 1998; Smith, Chatfield, and Pagnucco 1997; Smith, Pagnucco, and Lopez 1998). As a result, some have argued that human rights have increasingly become part of the shared knowledge and collective understandings informing a “world polity” (Boli and Thomas 1997, 1998). International human rights, thus, have become constitutive elements of modern and “civilized” statehood. But it is one thing to argue that there is a global human rights polity composed of international regimes, organizations, and supportive advocacy coalitions. It is quite another to claim that these global norms have made a real difference in the daily practices of national governments toward their citizens. On the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration, we thought it appropriate to evaluate the processes by which human rights principles and norms found their way from the international into the domestic political arena.

International Law and Public Attitudes Toward Torture: An Experimental Study

Abstract: Domestic approaches to compliance with international commitments often presume that international law has a distinct effect on the beliefs and preferences of national publics. Studies attempting to estimate the consequences of international law unfortunately face a wide range of empirical and methodological challenges. This article uses an experimental design embedded in two U.S. national surveys to offer direct systematic evidence of international law's effect on mass attitudes. To provide a relatively tough test for international law, the surveys examine public attitudes toward the use of torture, an issue in which national security concerns are often considered paramount. Contrary to the common contention of international law's inefficacy, I find that legal commitments have a discernible impact on public support for the use of torture. The effect of international law is also strongest in those contexts where pressures to resort to torture are at their highest. However, the effects of different dimensions in the level of international agreements' legalization are far from uniform. In contrast to the attention often devoted to binding rules, I find that the level of obligation seems to make little difference on public attitudes toward torture. Rather, the relative precision of the rules, along with the degree to which enforcement is delegated to third parties, plays a much greater role in shaping public preferences. Across both international law and legalization, an individual's political ideology also exerts a strong mediating effect, though in varying directions depending on the design of the agreement. The findings have implications for understanding the overall impact of international law on domestic actors, the importance of institutional design, and the role of political ideology on compliance with international agreements.