Torture in International Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law: The Actor and the Ad Hoc Tribunals

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 541-556

  Sivakumaran, Sandesh ^a  

^a INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

ad hoc tribunals; convention against torture; definition of torture; human rights; humanitarian law; non state actors; Torture

Indexed keywords

EID: 43249173152     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156505002864     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvocka, Mlado Radic, Zoran Zigic and Dragoljub Prcac, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Judgment, 28 February 2005 (Kvocka).
2. 1984 United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1465 UNTS 85.
3. United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel., Art. 1.
4. Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic, Hazim Delic and Esad Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Judgment, 16 November 1998 (Celebici), para. 459; Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Judgment, 10 December 1998 (Furundzija Trial Judgment), para. 160.
5. Celebici, Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic note 4, para. 473; Furundzija Trial Judgment, Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic note 4, para. 162; Prosecutor v.Anto Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Judgment, 21 July 2000 (Furundzija Appeal Judgment), para. 111; Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgment, 2 September 1998 (Akayesu), para. 594.
6. Prosecutorv.DragoljubKunarac,RadomirKovacandZoranVukovic,CaseNo. IT-96-23-T&IT-96-23/1-T, Judgment, 22 February 2001 (Kunarac Trial Judgment), para. 482.
7. Convention against Torture, Prosecutorv.DragoljubKunarac note 2, Art. 1(2).
8. See e.g. with respect to the European Convention on Human Rights, Selmouni v. France, Judgment of 28 July 1999, [1999] ECHR at 181-2; with respect to the Statutes of the ICTY and ICTR, see infra.
9. Furundzija Trial Judgment, with respect to the European Convention on Human Rights note 4, para. 160.
10. Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 9 December 1975, Art. 1.
11. Akayesu, Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel note 5, para. 594.
12. Furundzija Trial Judgment, Akayesu note 4, paras 160, 162; Furundzija Appeal Judgment, Akayesu note 5, para. 111.
13. Celebici, Furundzija Trial Judgment note 4, para. 473.
14. Celebici., para. 474.
15. Kunarac Trial Judgment, Celebici note 6, para. 482.
16. Kunarac Trial Judgment., paras. 469-70.
17. Kunarac Trial Judgment., para. 496.
18. Kunarac Trial Judgment., para. 495.
19. Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvocka,Mlado Radic, Zoran Zigic and Dragoljub Prcac, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Judgment, 2 November 2001, para. 139.
20. Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Judgment, 15March 2002, para. 187.
21. Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simic,Miroslav Tadic and Simo Zaric, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Judgment, 17 October 2003, para. 82.
22. Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgment, 1 September 2004, paras. 488-9.
23. Prosecutor v. DragoljubKunarac, RadomirKovac and Zoran Vukovic, CaseNo. IT-96-23&IT-96-23/1-A, Judgment, 12 June 2002, (Kunarac Appeal Judgment), para. 145.
24. Prosecutor v. DragoljubKunarac., para. 147.
25. Prosecutor v. DragoljubKunarac., para. 146.
26. Prosecutor v. DragoljubKunarac., para. 147.
27. Prosecutor v. DragoljubKunarac., para. 148.
28. Kvocka, Prosecutor v. DragoljubKunarac note 1, paras 278-280.
29. Kvocka., para. 284.
30. See Kunarac Appeal Judgment, Kvocka note 23, paras 146-8.
31. Furundzija Trial Judgment, Kunarac Appeal Judgment note 4, para. 162.
32. Furundzija Appeal Judgment, Furundzija Trial Judgment note 5, para. 111.
33. See Kunarac Trial Judgment, Furundzija Appeal Judgment note 6, para. 470.
34. See Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of theWounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, Article 12; Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, Article 12; Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners ofWar of 12 August 1949, Articles 17 and 87; Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time ofWar of 12 August 1949, Article 32; Article 3 Common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977, Article 11; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977 (Additional Protocol II), Article 4.
35. Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski, and B. Zimmerman (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (1987), at 1373-4.
36. See 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 78 UNTS 278, Article 6; Kunarac Trial Judgment, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 note 6, para. 493; G. Mettraux, International Crimes and the Ad Hoc Tribunals (2005), 272-8.
37. Although it should be noted that Article 7(2)(i) of the Rome Statute limits the ‘enforced disappearance of persons’ to ‘persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a state or a political organization’.
38. Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Judgment, 15 July 1999, para. 223; Furundzija Trial Judgment, Although it should be noted that Article note 4, para. 227; Kunarac Trial Judgment, Although it should be noted that Article note 6, fn 1210.
39. 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, (1969) 8 ILM 679, Art. 32(a).
40. A. Aust,Modern Treaty Law and Practice (2000), 188.
41. UN Doc. A/RES/39/46 (10 December 1984), preambular para. 5.
42. Convention against Torture, UN Doc. A/RES/39/46 note 2, preambular para. 6.
43. Declaration against Torture, Convention against Torture note 10, Art. 1.
44. UN Doc. A/RES 3452 (XXX) (9 December 1975).
45. N. Rodley, The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law (1999), 30. See also N. Rodley, ‘Can Armed Opposition Groups Violate Human Rights?’, in K. Mahoney and P. Mahoney (eds.), Human Rights in the Twenty-First Century: A Global Challenge (1993), 297, at 298.
46. A. Boulesbaa, The U.N. Convention on Torture and the Prospect for Enforcement (1999), 5.
47. Proposal of theUnited States cited in J. Burgers and H. Danelius, TheUnitedNations Convention against Torture: A Handbook on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1988), 41.
48. Text submitted by the Chairman cited TheUnitedNations Convention against Torture., at 43.
49. Proposal of the United Kingdom cited Text submitted by the Chairman cited TheUnitedNations Convention against Torture., at 45.
50. Boulesbaa, Proposal of the United Kingdom cited Text submitted by the Chairman cited TheUnitedNations Convention against Torture note 48, at 23-6.
51. Burgers and Danelius, Boulesbaa note 49, at 45; Boulesbaa, Boulesbaa note 48, at 23-4.
52. Boulesbaa, Burgers and Danelius note 48, at 24.
53. See Burgers and Danelius, Boulesbaa note 49, at 119; Boulesbaa, Boulesbaa note 48, at 24.
54. Burgers and Danelius, Burgers and Danelius note 49, at 120.
55. See Convention against Torture, Burgers and Danelius note 2, Arts. 17-24.
56. G.R.B. v. Sweden, Communication No. 83/1997, UN Doc. A/53/44, Annex X, at 92, para. 6.5 (G.R.B.).
57. Sadiq Shek Elmi v. Australia, Communication No. 120/1998, UN Doc. A/54/44, Annex VII, at 109 (Elmi).
58. Sadiq Shek Elmi v. Australia., para. 6.5.
59. Sadiq Shek Elmi v. Australia., para. 6.7.
60. Sadiq Shek Elmi v. Australia., para. 6.5.
61. See V.X.N. and H.N. v. Sweden, Communications Nos. 130/1999 and 131/1999, UN Doc. A/55/44, at 133, para. 13.8; M.P.S. v. Australia, Communication No. 138/1999, UN Doc. A/55/44, page 111, para. 7.4.
62. H.M.H.I. v. Australia, Communication No. 177/2001, UN Doc. A/57/44, at 146, para. 6.4 (H.M.H.I.).
63. As noted by R. McCorquodale and R. LaForgia, ‘Taking off the Blindfolds: Torture by Non-State Actors’, 1(2) Human Rights Law Review 189, 204-5: ‘Whilst Elmi dealt with the situation where there was no government at all, other cases have applied these obligations where there is a government but that government was not able to protect individuals from violations of the prohibition on torture.’
64. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Adan, [2001] 1 All ER 593 at 608 (HL) cited in McCorquodale and LaForgia, ‘Taking off the Blindfolds: Torture by Non-State Actors’ note 68, at 204-5.
65. McCorquodale and LaForgia, R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department note 68, at 213.
66. International Law Commission, Report of the International Law Commission on theWork of Its Fifty-Third Session, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001), Chapter 4, commentary to Art. 9, para. 1.
67. International Law Commission., para. 5.
68. Burgers and Danelius, International Law Commission note 49, at 45.
69. Given that human rights instruments are ‘living’ instruments and adapt to changed circumstances (see e.g., Tyrer v.UnitedKingdom, Judgment of 25April 1978, [1978]ECHRat 15; Interpretation of theAmerican Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, para. 37), it is suggested that the answer is in the affirmative.
70. H.L.R. v. France, Judgment of 29 April 1997, [1997] ECHR at 758.
71. A v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 23 September 1998, [1998] ECHR at 2699.
72. A. Cassese, ‘Prohibition of Torture’, in R. St. J. Macdonald, F. Matscher and H. Petzold (eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (1993), 226.
73. UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20: Article 7 (Prohibition of Torture, or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7 (2004), para. 2.
74. UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31: Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev. 7 (2004), para. 8.
75. UN Human Rights Committee., para. 8.
76. A. Clapham, Human Rights in the Private Sphere (1993), 109.
77. M.Tardu, ‘TheUnitedNationsConventionagainstTortureandotherCruel,InhumanorDegradingTreatment or Punishment’, 56 Nordic Journal of International Law 303, 306.
78. A. Byrnes, ‘The Committee against Torture’, in P. Alston (ed.), The United Nations and Human Rights: A Critical Appraisal (1992), 518, n 35.
79. Celebici, ‘The Committee against Torture’ note 4, para. 473.
80. Akayesu, Celebici note 5, para. 594.
81. Kunarac Appeal Judgment, Akayesu note 23, para. 147. See also Furundzija Trial Judgment, Akayesu note 4, para. 162; Furundzija Appeal Judgment, Akayesu note 5, para. 111.
82. A. Roberts, ‘False Dichotomies in International Law’ (unpublished LL.M. thesis).
83. General Comment No. 20, ‘False Dichotomies in International Law’ note 79, para. 2.
84. Report of the ILC, General Comment No. 20 note 71, Commentary to Art. 7, para. 7.
85. R v. Bow StreetMetropolitan StipendiaryMagistrate and others, ex parte PinochetUgarte (Amnesty International and others intervening) (No. 3), [2000] 1 AC 147, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson.
86. A similar problem was faced in the context of official acts for the purposes of immunity. See S. Wirth, ‘Immunity for Core Crimes? The ICJ's Judgment in the Congo v Belgium Case’, 13 EJIL 877, at 891.
87. Convention against Torture, A similar problem was faced in the context of official acts for the purposes of immunity note 2, Art. 1 (emphasis added).
88. The fact that the Committee againstTorture considered the issue inthe context ofnon-refoulement while the ICTY considered it in the context of the obligation to punish should not make a difference for our purposes. To hold otherwise would be to argue for one definition for one part of the Convention against Torture and another definition for another part. The Convention itself makes no such distinction.
89. R. Copelon, ‘Recognizing the Egregious in the Everyday: Domestic Violence as Torture’, 25 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 291, 344-9.
90. H. Charlesworth, C. Chinkin and S. Wright, ‘Feminist Approaches to International Law’, 85 AJIL 613, at 629, note: ‘[t]he assumption that underlies all law, including international human rights law, is that the public/ private distinction is real. By extending our vision beyond the public/private ideologies that rationalize limiting our analysis of power, human rights language as it currently exists can be used to describe serious forms of repression that go far beyond the juridically narrow vision of international law’. See generally, H. Charlesworth and C. Chinkin, The Boundaries of International Law (2000).
91. Ondomestic violence as torture, see Copelon, ‘Feminist Approaches to International Law’ note 96; R. Copelon, ‘Understanding DomesticViolence as Torture’, in R. Cook (ed.),HumanRights ofWomen:National and International Perspectives (1994), 116; C.Romany, ‘State Responsibility Goes Private: A Feminist Critique of the Public/Private Distinction in International Human Rights Law’, in R. Cook (ed.), Human Rights of Women: National and International Perspectives (1994), 116; C.MacKinnon, ‘On Torture: A Feminist Perspective on Human Rights’, inMahoney andMahoney, ‘Feminist Approaches to International Law’ note 47, 21; A. Byrnes, ‘Feminist Approaches to International Law’ note 84, at 509; A. Byrnes, ‘The Convention Against Torture’, in K. Askin and D. Koenig (eds.),Women and International Human Rights Law, Vol. 2 (2000), at 183; D. Thomas and M. Beasley, ‘Domestic Violence as a Human Rights Issue’, 58 Alb. L. Rev. 1119.
92. Kunarac Appeal Judgment, Ondomestic violence as torture note 23, paras. 146-7 affirming Furundzija Appeal Judgment, Ondomestic violence as torture note 5, para. 111.