Humans Rights - World Torture - Essay Example

?Bulletin: World Torture Contents Contents Introduction 2 IV.Conclusion and Recommendations 16 Bibliography 18 Mentor: Bulletin: World Torture Introduction Freedom from torture is recognized as a high priority fundamental right in international human rights standards. The freedom from torture is expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1976 (ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984 (Torture Convention) (Steiner, Aston and Goodman 2008, p. 224). Despite its priority in international human rights convention, empirical evidence suggests that the elimination of torture is far from complete (Nagan and Atkins 2001, p. 87). For instance a global survey conducted by Amnesty International (2000) reflects that at least 7% of countries practice torture despite ascension to the Torture Convention. This bulletin seeks to identify the extent of the problem relative to the international right to freedom from torture. In doing so the history of issue world torture, the nature of the problem in terms of empirical evidence, international efforts by virtue of conventions for eradicating world torture and possible solutions for achieving the international priority to eliminate torture are examined and analysed. I. History of the Issue of World Torture A. State Sanctioned Torture in Ancient Europe and England Nagan and Atkins (2001) inform that torture was not always a defined prohibition in international, national and regional legal regimes. On the contrary, historically, social order dictated that those who were charged with the responsibility of engineering the social order were willing to “use torture as an instrument” for exercising “effective control over others” (p. 92). Complicating matters, elements of culture, religion and ideology supported the use of torture by those in power. As a result torture was previously implicitly tolerated as necessary for promoting and safeguarding the larger interest of society. As Nagan and Atkins (2001) explain: ...the predisposition to torture requires for its efficacy that it be displaced on public enemies with a religious, cultural, or ideological mechanism of overt or tacit validation of an alleged community interest (usually public order, security, or law and order) (p. 92) At common law, torture was an established part of the legal process. It was used for the administration of oaths and proof of the truth of a matter could be established by the use of torture. The trial by ordeal stands as a manifestation of the historical support of the judicial use of torture. Langbein (2006) the use of “judicial torture” under the Roman-Cannon statutory regime which permitted “the use of physical coercion by offers of the state” for the purpose of gathering “evidence for judicial proceedings” (p. 3). State officials using torture pursuant to the truth and for maintaining the social order often rationalized the use of torture in other ways. It was largely believed that the tortured would be redeemed and thus experience some form of “moral cleansing” (Nagan and Atkins 2001, p. 92). Essentially, torture found currency with states on the basis that it was necessary for discovering the truth. The pain associated with torture was also rationalized on the basis that it benefitted the tortured by providing “moral and spiritual” benefits (Nagan and Atkins 2001, p. 92). Waisel (2010) explains that torture was legal for “long periods of history” (p. 280). Foot (2009) identifies four primary reasons that torture was historically used as a legal instrument of social control and order. Firstly, torture was used by the state pursuant to an ideology that accepted that subhuman factions existed. For instance, Greeks and Romans believed that torture was the best method for abstracting truth from slaves. Secondly, torture was believed to be the best method for obtaining the truth. Thirdly, there was a widespread belief among political and royal leaders that torture was a manifestation of unfettered power. Fourthly, with the establishment of the state, torture was perceived as a valid and effective method for defending the state against opposition and to obtain information (Foot 2009, p. 107). B. International Sentiments and Movements Against Torture The legal use of torture was eventually abhorred as a result of societal transformations and the changes in relations between government and citizens. Moreover, there was a movement toward moral reasoning. For instance, torture was abrogated in Europe during the 18th century and the early part of the 19th century, partly as a result of the modification of Europe’s laws relative to the procedural and substantive laws of proof. New punishment codes and taxation which facilitated the institutionalization of criminals also contributed to the abrogation of torture in Europe (Foot 2009, p. 107). A shift from monarchy toward sovereignty also reduced the necessity of using torture as a demonstration of autonomy. There was an engendered belief that social control was more effectively maintained via the establishment of institutions such as schools, factories, prisons and the military. Moreover, the Enlightenment produced philosophers and scholars such as Cesare Beccaria of 1764 who argued against the use of torture claiming that it was immoral and endangered the liberty of the innocent while permitting the guilty to escape justice by virtue of the ability to withstand pain (Foot 2009, p. 107). The international sentiments against torture are grounded in the development of human rights recognition and articulation in international movements. Claude and Weston (2006) inform however, that it was the “unprecedented horrors and violence” committed during the Second World War that: provided the negative inspiration for a revolution in international law to forge the principle that people should have rights as humans, and not merely as protected classes of subjects, such as citizens, civilians, or prisoners of war (p. 83). It is largely an undisputed fact that the atrocities associated with the Second World War gave birth to the universal standard for human rights. The Second World War is also said to be responsible for providing the moral and judicial reasoning for understanding the significance of human rights protection in avoiding violent conflict (Nagan and Atkins 2001, p. 95). Thus the implementation of the UN Charter 1945 represents the first step toward imposing upon states specific obligations for safeguarding the individual human rights of its citizens and for revolutionizing duties with respect to security and aggression (Nagan and Atkins 2001, p. 95). The UDHR contributed to this new world order by creating rights that individuals might be at liberty to use against a disrespecting or offending state. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and its protocols went further to articulate prohibitions and duties relative to humanitarian laws. In addition there were a number of regional efforts to strengthen human rights protections and a “strong and compelling desire on the part of the international community” to establish the institutional and policy support for the rights articulated in the UDHR (Nagan and Atkins 2001, p. 95). All indications are therefore that the UDHR which follows from the heightened awareness of human dignity and human rights following the atrocities of the Second World War inspired a changing tide toward state and international protection of human rights. It is against this background that the international legal regime against world torture is examined. Today, torture is virtually condemned worldwide (Shue 1978, p. 124). Torture is perceived as violating human rights by the deprivation of the victim’s right to life, the right to liberty, freedom or expression and opinion and the freedom of assembly (Special Rapporteur 2011, see also UDHR, Rodley and Pollard 2009). Shue (1978) describes torture as a “cruel assault upon the defenceless” (p. 130). Shue (1978) argues that there is “no other practice” other than slavery that is “so universally and unanimously condemned in law and human convention” (p. 124). A circuit judge in Wilson v City of Chicago (1993) argued that even a murderer has a right to be protected from torture (p. 1236). The implications are that there are strong sentiments against the use of torture. II. The International Legal Regime Against Torture Torture is typically used today in practices associated with unlawful detention, unfair trials and interrogations by law enforcement officials. Torture is also used by politicians to silence and suppress opposition to state power and ideologies (Human Rights Watch. As demonstrated throughout history, torture is used for obtaining confessions of guilt or other information in criminal proceedings. In other circumstances there are instances where groups of people are detained arbitrarily and others are murdered and buried secretly in what amounts to forced disappearances (Lynch 2011). In other circumstances police have been known to use torture as a means of dispersing public protests. In other cases following a conviction and sentencing by the court, prisoners are held unfairly without the benefit of the appellate process of other forms of judicial review. Prisoners either sentenced or detained pending trial are subjected to brutality (Human Rights Watch). Be that as it may, torture is condemned in virtually all international human rights conventions and instruments as well as international humanitarian law conventions (Van der Vyver p. 2003, p. 430). For instance Article 5 of the UDHR (1948) provides that: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 5). Article 7 of the ICCPR makes a vastly similar provision as does Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights Article. Similar rights against torture also appear in the American Convention on Human Rights (1970, Article 5(2)) and the African Charter on Human Rights and Peoples’ Rights (1982, Article 5). One of the problems with the international and regional movement toward prohibiting torture however, is that torture is not defined, nor is the obligations on the state to prevent torture (Nickel 1993, p. 80). The United Nations adoption of the Torture Convention appears to have dispensed with the problem of definition and the distribution of state duties. To begin with, the Torture Convention places a positive burden on member states to implement “effective legislative administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture” (Torture Convention 1984, Article 2(1)). Member states are also required to implement the crime of torture pursuant to the definition contained in the Torture Convention (Torture Convention Article 4). In addition the Torture Convention is supplemented by a number of other UN General Assembly efforts including the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, and the Principles of Medical Ethics. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights also established the Special Rapporteur on Torture in 1985 (Nagan and Atkins 2001, p. 97). The establishment of these bodies and codes as a supplement to the Torture Convention are obviously meant to bring clear definition to what amounts to torture and to ensure that all elements of authority are complying with the positive duty to prevent and prohibit torture pursuant to Article 2 of the Torture Convention. Article 1(1) of the Torture Convention defines torture as follows: 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 (Article 1(1). Van der Vyver (2003) cautions however, that is an international treaty and as such only covers member state duties and as a result is only applicable on a limited basis. Moreover, noticeably absent from the definition of torture under the Torture Convention is the requirement that torture is aligned to pain and suffering which can be attributed to state and legal punishment. As it is, serious suffering accompanies a number of state-mandated punishments such as “imprisonment, corporal punishment or capital punishment” (Van der Vyver 2003, p. 433). Obviously, the Torture Convention does not intend to infringe on the sovereign state’s right to issue those kinds of legal punishments and thus they do not fall under the umbrella of the Convention’s definition of torture. Even so, the Torture Convention draws attention to the urgency of eradicating torture and specifically highlight the significance of member state adherence and application of the Convention. Thus Article 2 of the Convention places constraints in rationalizing the use of torture under the guise of national security or social control. For instance, Article 2 provides that torture may not be legalized for the purposes of “war or threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency” (Torture Convention, Article 2). The Torture Convention places a lot of emphasis on the duty of Member States to prevent torture. Article 10 of the Torture Convention for instance, imposes upon member states a duty to ensure that training in prohibiting torture is extended to: law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials, and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment (Torture Convention, Article 10). Article 10 is supplemented by the UN Commission on Human Rights Commission’s Resolution 1999 of 32 which provides that the High Commissioner for Human Rights will if requested by Member States, provide counsel and advice for guiding member states with how to provide training and education to the relevant parties. Technical assistance is also available upon request (UN Commission on Human Rights Commission Resolution 1999/32). Amnesty International, a non-governmental organization (NGO) that works with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights also issues a Twelve-Point Program for the Prevention of Torture (1983). Point Nine notes that: It should be made clear during the training of all officials involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of prisoners, that torture is a criminal act. They should be instructed that they are obliged to disobey any order to torture (Twelve-Point Program for the Prevention Torture 1983, para 9). Obviously, the education and training of law enforcement officials and others who are directly involved in the apprehension, detention and interrogation of suspects is an important part of the prevention of torture mandate. The historic link between torture and interrogation is therefore not lost on the Torture Convention. To this end Article 11 of the Torture Convention provides that member states are required to conduct “systematic” reviews of: Interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment (Torture Convention, Article 11). It therefore follows that implicit in Article 11 of the Torture Convention is a preventative measure intricately tied to a code of professional conduct and democratic practices that engender transparency. The positive burden on member states to ensure that their citizens are free of torture is further exemplified by Article 12 of the Torture Convention. Article 12 provides that Member States investigate all claims of torture “promptly and impartially” (Torture Convention, Article 12). In addition, member states are required to investigate the likelihood of torture in the event “there are reasonable grounds” to suspect that torture “has been committed” (Torture Convention, Article 12). Article 13 imposes upon member states a positive duty to safeguard against the threat or fear of harm to those who complain about torture or any witness to such a complaint. Nagan and Atkin (2001) observe that Article 13 is necessary because instinctively, officials accused of torture react to those complaining or those who are witness with harassment, intimidation or other forms of threats and misconduct (p. 101). Article 13 of the Torture Convention therefore acknowledges and regulates a serious procedural obstacle to the prevention and elimination of torture. As Nagan and Atkin (2001) note, “if the individual cannot complain, then there is nothing to prevent and nothing to punish” (p. 101). There may be some intrinsic concerns about the utility of Articles 12 and 13 since they call upon officials who might be the offenders to protect those against whom they offend. However as Nagan and Atkin (2001) explain: These provisions assume that states are complex structures and that governance is often a matter of the exercise of multiple, concurrent and sequential powers; one branch of a state can police another branch of the state and hold it accountable for breaking the rules. This insight compels the appraisers of the Convention Against Torture to examine a state not as an undivided homogeneous entity, but as a cluster of coextensive and competing interests (p. 101). Therefore as a result of decentralization, the combined efforts of political bodies, interests groups should put pressure on the competent officials to ensure compliance with the Torture Convention. Article 15 strengthens Article 13 by providing that evidence obtained in the commission of torture may not be used against the tortured. However, evidence so obtained may be used against the perpetrator (Torture Convention, Article 15). Thus Article 15 recognizes and acknowledges that it is within the realm of possibility for states to use flawed evidence as a method for justifying punishment. The due process consequences of Articles 13 and 15 are therefore important for establishing the rule of law necessary for preventing torture and permitting the legitimate investigation of complaints of torture. Article 14 may be seen as deterrent principle since it urges member states to provide for an “enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation” (Torture Convention, Article 14). Compensation is thus described as the provision of recovery and rehabilitation of the victim (Torture Convention, Article 14). While it is doubtful that compensatory damages can restore the victim’s dignity and self-respect, it at least provides some comfort in knowing that those who commit torture under the authority of law will be held accountable by virtue of Article 14. The most that can be expected, is that the prospects of having to pay compensatory damages will at the very least temper the degree of torture used, if it does not deter torture altogether. The Torture Convention also provides for the establishment of institutional and procedural systems for meeting the objectives of prohibiting torture. In this regard, Article 17 of the Torture Convention creates the Committee against Torture and provides for its functions in Article 18. In this regard, the Committee Against Torture has the authority to analyse reports submitted by member states and to make inquiries relative to state practices under the Convention. The Committee is also at liberty to review complaints submitted by member states claiming that another state is not adhering to the Torture Convention. In addition the Committee may review complaints of state noncompliance with the Torture Convention filed by individuals (Torture Convention, Articles 17-22). Supplementing the drive to eradicate torture by virtue of international conventions and instruments there have been actions taken by inter-governmental organizations, governments and NGOs to prevent torture or to intervene in incidents of torture. For instance, the United Nations officials intervened in the Tunisian human rights violations incidents by urging Tunisia to control and regulate the excessive use of force against peaceful demonstrations (Special Rapporteur 2011). As a result, state officials compelled prompt cessation of excessive force. Tunisia’s presidents prohibited the use of weapons against demonstrators. According to the Special Rapporteur (2011) this was significant progress in the efforts to combat torture. The Tunisian government is currently cooperating with the Human Rights Council’s special procedures. Amnesty International also intervened by insisting that other states in which Tunisians were located adhere to the duty of non-refoulement of refugees. In other words, these other states were urged not to deport Tunisians to Tunisia for fear of persecution. In addition, the combined impact of criticism by anti-terrorism laws by the international community influenced amendments to the law. Moreover, the US Special Rapporteur, Juan Mendez called for a complete and effective investigation of accusations of torture and for the appropriate penalties for perpetrators and due assistance and compensation for victims. Mendez also called for reform in terms of constitutional, administrative and other legal institutions as a means of addressing the torture more effectively (Jargan 2011). Thus far it has been established that there are international instruments and bodies charged with responsibility for ensuring that torture is eliminated, prevented and investigated. Even so, there are a number of concerns relative to the level and frequency of torture. The next section takes a look at the on-going concerns relative to the elimination of torture. Thus an examination of empirical evidence revealing that despite the efforts implicit in international instruments, particularly the efforts underscored in the section under the Torture Convention, torture remains a problem and is far from eliminated. III. Empirical Evidence of Torture Leonard (2006) argues that while there has been significant progress in terms of countries ratifying the international human rights instruments convention, human rights continue to be abused and contravened globally (p. 783). For instance, Amnesty International’s 2001 Annual Report in 2001 reported that of the 149 states surveyed that year, at least 61 conducted “extrajudicial executions” (Leonard 2006, p. 783). In 125 countries, law enforcement, the military and other state officials “tortured or ill-treated” their citizens (Leonard 2006, p. 783). Amnesty International’s reported that the extent of torture involves the arbitrary arrest and detention of individuals. In addition, armed groups “committed serious human rights abuses such as deliberate and arbitrary killings of civilians, torture and hostage-taking” in at least 42 of the countries surveyed (Leonard 2006, p. 783). The torture most frequently occurred in countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa (Leonard 2006, p. 783). More recently, Amnesty International’s (2011) Global report lists a number of concerns relative to torture in several regions and states. For instance, the 2011 report notes that Chinese officials are targeting lawyers who engage in human rights protections. For instance these lawyers are subjected to a range of abuses including harassment, forced disappearances and torture. Amnesty International (2011) notes that: The Chinese State is attempting to wield and manipulate the law to crush those it perceives as a threat. Human rights lawyers are being targeted as they try to use the law to protect citizens against the excesses of the state. Amnesty International (2011) also reports that the Polish government is involved in “state secrecy” in which it denies torture victims justice by supporting a secret CIA prison on a Polish military base. Lithuania is also under scrutiny for failing to investigate the detention of CIA officers who are subjected to ill-treatment at secret detention facilities in Lithuania. According to the Amnesty International (2011) report there are serious concerns relative to the torture of refugees in North Africa. For instance, the report notes that 1,800 refugees seeking to flee Libya died “at sea” (Amnesty International 2011). The list of concerns registered by Amnesty International is exhaustive. The cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees in Greek’s prison and jail facilities are also noted among other concerns that are not limited to third world countries (Amnesty International 2011). A report released by Amnesty International 2010 also points out torture committed by US officials in Iraq. According to the report US and Iraqi troops have together: Tortured or otherwise ill-treated many prisoners, some of whom have died as a result. They have killed civilians in raids on houses, at checkpoints and during armed clashes. They have destroyed the houses and other property of Iraqis (Amnesty International 2010). Although these allegations and reports of torture did not occur on American soil, they have been committed under the authority of the US military. All indications are therefore that there is a propensity to commit torture for the assertion of power or for the abstraction of a confession or to obtain the truth. In other words, the impulse for torture is deeply ingrained in human nature. Therefore the efforts to eradicate torture by virtue of international instruments and cooperation still have a lot of work to do. The section below will make some recommendations intended to improve the enforcement and application of the international condemnation of torture. IV. Conclusion and Recommendations At best, the international efforts of intergovernmental organizations and NGOs such as Amnesty International have called attention to the extent of torture and the need to eliminate it. The Torture Convention and all other international instruments acknowledge that torture is a serious threat to world peace, human rights and human dignity and have thus attempted to prevent and eliminate it. However as noted, torture has always been a functional part of civilization for a number of reasons associated with human culture, religion and political idealization. Despite efforts to reverse the ancient propensity to commit torture, it remains a problem in the post-modern world. In order to eliminate and prevent torture it is necessary for a number of actors and institutions to work together. However, governments must take both a reactive and proactive role in indorsing and supporting these efforts. As Nagan and Atkins (2001) note, it is “rogue states” that demonstrate that the most successful cases of torture are those perpetrated by the state (p. 120). It therefore follows that just as governments have the authority to set the standard for torture in an adverse way, they also have the authority to set the standards for torture in a positive way. NGOs also play a crucial role in heightening public awareness of the incidents of human torture. Conventional wisdom dictates that when citizens become outraged about an issue, governments are under pressure to make satisfactory changes. Therefore, governments should support and work with NGOs with respect to publicising the incidents of torture. Global awareness will thus put pressure on states that tolerate and commit torture on their own citizens. As Nagan and Atkin (2001) observe: Members of civil society must recognize their own potential victimhood and contribute to efforts to prohibit torture (p. 120). However, civil engagement is not possible unless and until citizens are aware of the extent and level of torture globally and at home. Public awareness is therefore the key to implementing, interpreting and applying the Torture Convention globally. NGOs and human rights organizations in general can help to eliminate torture by increasing pressure on countries to improve prison conditions and to seriously address the issue of brutality against prisoners. In this regard, countries should be urged by NGOs to tighten legal restrictions and penalties against perpetrators of torture so that all individuals regardless of the crimes they are alleged to have committed or have committed are accorded due process and the protection of the fundamental and universal freedoms and rights. Kouchner (2007) informs that states are under a duty to intervene in the national sovereignty of other state for the purpose of human rights protection under the guise of the Responsibility to Protect under the UN Declaration 1999. In addition inter-government cooperation is a key strategy for enforcing the Torture Convention. In this regard, a special extradition treaty is necessary to ensure that officials suspected of torture do not find refuge in another state. The idea that an official cannot escape the consequences of torture will go a long way to strengthening the application and enforcement of the Torture Convention. In the final analysis, torture is embedded in state power. The state derives its power from civil society. It therefore follows that civil society has the wherewithal to force state officials to negotiate for retention of power. In this regard, states have a responsibility to safeguard the interest of those within their territory. This responsibility includes freedom from torture. Therefore states should ensure that they are worthy of the trust and confidence accorded them by those they lead. This means taking the initiative in reacting to and taking pre-emptive strikes against torture and setting a standard for others to follow. Bibliography African Charter on Human Rights and Peoples’ Rights 1982. Ajbaili M. (2011). UN official says 300 killed during Tunisian uprising, torture still continues. Al Arabiya News. American Convention on Human Rights, 1970. Amnesty International. 12-Point Program for the Prevention of Torture. 1983. http://www.amnesty.org.au/hrs/comments/2202/ (Retrieved 29 July 2011). Amnesty International. “The State of the World’s Human Rights”. 2011. http://www.amnesty.org/en/annual-report/2011 (Retrieved 29 July 2011). Amnesty International. “New Order, Same Abuses: Unlawful Detentions and Torture in Iraq.” September 2010. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE14/006/2010/en/c7df062b-5d4c-4820-9f14-a4977f863666/mde140062010en.pdf (Retrieved 29 July 2011). Amnesty International (2000). http://www.amnesty.org/en (Retrieved 2 August 2011). Claude, R. P. and Weston, B. Human Rights in the World Community: Issues and Actions. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984. European Convention on Human Rights 1950. Foot, R. “Torture: The Struggle Over a Peremptory Norm in a Counter-Terrorist Era”. Cited in Sernau, S. R. (Ed.). Contemporary Readings in Globalization. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press, 2009. Human Rights Watch Report (n.d.). www.informafrica.com (Retrieved 2 August 2011). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966. Jagran (22 May, 2011) United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture: Juan Mendez visits Tunisia http://post.jagran.com/united-nations-special-rapporteur-on-torture-juan-mendez-visits-tunisia-1306036696# (Retrieved 2 August 2011). Kouchner B. (2007) “The duty of humanitarian intervention” http://www.prio.no/News/NewsItem/?oid=73263 (Retrieved 2 August 2011). Langbein, J. H. Torture and the Law of Proof: Europe and England in the Ancient Regime. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 2006. Leonard, T. M. Encyclopedia of the Developing World, Vol. 1. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC., 2006. Lynch C. ( 27 January, 2011). Tunisia’s brutal contribution to the war on terror: the human rotisserie. Foreign Policy. Nagan, W.P. and Atkins, L. “The International Law of Torture: From Universal Proscription to Effective Application and Enforcement.” Harvard Human Rights Journal (Spring 2001) 14: 87-122. Nickel, J. W. “How Human Rights Generate Duties to Protect and Provide.” Human Rights Quarterly. Feb. 1993, Vol. 15(1): 77-86. Rodley N. & Pollard M. (2009). The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Shue, H. “Torture.” Philosophy and Public Affairs. (Winter 1978)7(2): 123-143. Steiner, H.J.; Aston, P. and Goodman, R. International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics and Morals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2008. Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. UN Commission on Human Rights Commission Resolution 1999/32. Van der Vyver, J. D. “Torture as a Crime Under International Law.” Albany Law Review. 2003, Vol. 67: 427-463. Waisel, D.B. “Anesthesiologists, the State, and Society: Physician Facilitation of Torture and Cooercive Interrogation”. Cited in Van Norman, G.A.; Jackson, S. and Rosenbaum, S. H. (Eds.). Clinical Ethics in Anesthesiology: A Case-Based Textbook. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Westall S. (21 May, 2011). People still tortured in Tunisia: U.N rapporteur. Wilson v. City of Chicago 6 F.3d. 1233 (7th Cir. 1993). Read More