STOPPING THE TORTURE TRADE: KEY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, Torturers are not born, they are nurtured, trained and supported. In many cases they rely on foreign governments for the tools of their trade and expertise in how to use them. Some governments are directly involved in the torture trade; others prefer to turn a blind eye. Some of the tools of the torture trade seem almost medieval — shackles, leg irons, thumbscrews, chains and whips. However, in the last decade there has been a marked expansion in the manufacture, trade and use of other kinds of technology used by security and police forces, especially electro-shock technology and riot control agents. Dr.Crowley will show us a catalogue of both these old and new "tools of torture". All these devices and weapons, no matter how different, have in common the potential to inflict severe pain and injury. They also share a serious lack of official controls on their manufacture and sale. Manufacturing, trading and promoting equipment which is used to torture people is a money-making business. The parallel trade in providing training in the techniques of physical and mental torture can be equally profitable. Companies and individuals around the world are involved in providing devices and expertise which are ostensibly designed for security or crime control purposes, but which in reality lend themselves to serious abuse. This is a global trade involving countries on every continent; it also, therefore, involves companies in every region. Controlling the torture trade is an important part of the efforts to eradicate torture. The Global Alliance is a unique opportunity to set the political agenda and to make a number of recommendations to governments, as well as to companies, on how this trade can be effectively controlled. I appreciate the opportunity of being here today and discuss the Global Alliance and its agenda for action. FRAMEWORK OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS I will start highlighting the already existing human rights standards, including those relating to law enforcement and prison administration, were we based our recommendations.
These already existing standards. Governments already have responsibilities under these. They are: Absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment, state responsibility, the use of force by law enforcement officials should be governed by the principles of necessity and proportionality and States need to provide for the control of less lethal weapons. The Global Alliance is an opportunity for States to fullfill its obligations under human rights law. 1. Absolute prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. Our starting point should always be the absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment under international law. The prohibition applies in all circumstances, including in situations of armed conflict, during anti-terrorist operations, or other public emergency. Every state is bound by it even if they are not party to particular treaties containing the prohibition. States are obligated not only to protect people from torture and other ill- treatment by public officials but also from similar acts by private individuals and companies. The prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment was recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has been included in many subsequent international and regional human rights treaties and other instruments. Many of these instruments, as well as prohibiting torture and other ill-treatment, also require measures to prevent such abuses. And from the obligation, to the solution. By putting in place national legislation that recognizes the prohibition of intrinsically inhumane weapons and the obligation on states to adopt strict risk assessments based on human rights criteria on the transfer of law enforcement equipment, States will be fulfilling its obligations under international law and sending a powerful message that torture and ill- treatment won’t be accepted. 2. State obligations and extraterritoriality States must put in place the minimum standards in order to comply with their obligations to respect and protect human rights, including to prevent, investigate, punish and remedy human rights violations and abuses. It applies to all of a state’s human rights obligati ons, including in relation to the right to be free from torture and other ill-treatment and the right to life. In the context of law enforcement equipment, the main emphasis is on the state’s due diligence obligation to prevent abuses of the right to life, right to be free from torture and other ill- treatment and other human rights violations by regulating
and restricting access to security equipment when there is a risk that those goods will be used for serious human rights violations. Seems that we have a pattern, It is clear that the nature of the risk and the potential severity of its impacts requires a stringent level of human rights due diligence, where States must establish a comprehensive national trade control system to vet prospective transfers of controlled equipment. Decisions to grant export authorisations for controlled law enforcement equipment should be made on a case-by-case basis by the competent authority in the State where the applicant is based and this way human rights will be protected and obligations under IHRL met. I now would like to mention the use of force standards. The key rule. 3. Any use of force by law enforcement officials should be governed by the principles of necessity and proportionality The use of force by law enforcement officers is strictly regulated by international standards like the Basic Principle of Use of Force and Firearms, which require force to be used only by designated, trained and accountable public officials in strictly defined circumstances, and only when other means have failed or are ineffective in the circumstances and when its use is lawful, necessary and proportionate for the law enforcement objective. This is specially important for the torture trade, in relation to the security equipment. Law enforcement agencies and security services use equipment that ranges from the simplest technology – batons and sticks – through to implements like handcuffs, tear gas, water cannon and “stun guns”, to control crowds and restrain people alleged to have broken the law or to be posing an imminent threat to others. There are other regulations, like the UN Code of Conduct and UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. 4. Control the less lethal weapons Link to this is the principle that governs the less lethal weapons. The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials supports the use of less lethal weapons and provides for their control. Article 2 of these UN Basic Principles states: “Governments and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of means as broad as possible and equip law
enforcement officials with various types of weapons and ammunition that would allow for a differentiated use of f orce and firearms…” And Article 3 states: “The development and deployment of non lethal incapacitating weapons should be carefully evaluated in order to minimize the risk of endangering uninvolved persons, and the use of such weapons should be carefully controlled.” So, as I was saying…these are already existing obligations, and it seems to me that the Global Alliance, is a good solution driven initiative to fulfil such obligations. KEY ELEMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION Based on these already existing obligations, Amnesty International and Omega Research Foundation based our recommendations for the key components that an ideal instrument governing the trade on tools of torture should have: - Ban inherently inhumane equipment offered for law enforcement - A ban technical assistance in abusive equipment or techniques - Control the transfer of law enforcement equipment with a risk assessment regime based on human rights criteria. - Inclusion of the broadest possible scope of type of items and type of activities. - A system for reporting, transparency, exchange of information. 1. A ban inherently inhumane equipment offered for law enforcement Any potential international or national instrument should include a prohibition of the manufacture, use, of equipment that has no practical use in law enforcement other than for the purpose of capital punishment, torture and other ill-treatment; or where its use in practice has revealed a substantial risk of unwarranted injury. These are items inherently abusive that Dr. Crowley will present soon, like restraint chairs, weighted leg cuffs, thumb-screws, spiked batons; stun belts; restraint chairs, shackle-boards; and execution equipment such as gas chambers, gallows and electric chairs. 2. A ban technical assistance in abusive equipment or techniques States must ban technical assistance such as: training in the use of prohibited equipment; training in the inappropriate use of equipment such as employment of batons for strangulation, neck- holds or use of restraints for “hog - tying”; Dr. Crowley will elaborate on this later. 3. Adopt a control regime on the transfers of law enforcement equipment like ordinary police and prison handcuffs and hand held batons, pepper spray, and other, with a strict risk assessments licencing process based on human rights criteria. Some states might not associate these goods with the issue of torture, but they are
Recommend
More recommend
