UN Convention against Torture

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United Nations Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Short title: UN Convention against Torture
Title (engl.): United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Abbreviation: CAT
Date: Dec 10, 1984
Come into effect: June 26, 1987
Reference: Chapter IV Treaty 9 (PDF; 245 kB) UNTS
Reference (German): SR 0.105
Federal Law Gazette No. 492/1987
Contract type: Multinational
Legal matter: Human rights
Signing: 83
Ratification : 170 (current status: June 26, 2020 )

Germany: Ratified Oct. 1, 1990
Liechtenstein: Ratified Nov. 2, 1990
Austria: Ratified July 29, 1987
Switzerland: Ratified Dec. 2, 1986
Please note the note on the applicable contract version .

World map with the states relating to the Convention against Torture:
  • Signed and ratified
  • Signed but not ratified
  • Not signed and not ratified

    • The United Nations Convention against Torture ( English United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), French Convention contre la torture et autres peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants ) is that of the United Nations adopted the Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (FoK) of December 10, 1984. In the preamble it refers to the prohibition of torture in Art. 5 UDHR and Art. 7 IPbpR . The UN Convention against Torture is based on the previous UN resolution 3452 (xxx), the declaration of 9 December 1975 on the protection of all persons from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment .

    There is also a European Convention against Torture (CPT) of November 26, 1987, which, however, only serves to prevent violations of the prohibition of torture and is in line with the OPCAT .

    validity

    The UN Convention against Torture came into force on June 26, 1987 after ratification by 21 member states. 166 states have currently ratified the convention. Compliance with the agreement is monitored by the UN Committee against Torture .

    The convention is binding under international law. It complements the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocol of 1977 by precisely defining "torture" and regulating measures to prevent, prosecute and punish it.

    On December 18, 2002, the UN General Assembly adopted a protocol to the UN Convention against Torture. The Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture ( OPCAT ) contains a preventive approach to protection against torture and has been available for ratification since early 2003. With the 20th ratification, the Optional Protocol entered into force on June 22, 2006. It provides for the establishment of an international body that reports to the UN Committee against Torture and that can conduct investigations in prisons or other places where prisoners are held. Visits must be registered, however, so that affected governments can respond to allegations and prepare. The European Convention against Torture already contains this preventive element in its first version.

    Article excerpts

    According to Article 1 , torture refers to “any act by which a person is deliberately inflicted great physical or emotional pain or suffering, for example in order to obtain a testimony or confession from him or a third party in order to assure him or her to punish an act committed by a third party or to intimidate or coerce them or a third party, or for any other reason based on any kind of discrimination, if this is the pain or suffering of a member of the public service or another person acting in an official capacity, are caused at their instigation or with their express or tacit consent. The term does not include pain or suffering arising solely from, belonging to or associated with legally permissible sanctions. "

    Articles 2 to 4 provide that each State Party shall ensure that torture is prevented and made a criminal offense on its territory. However, he may “ not deport, deport or extradite a person to another country if there are valid reasons to believe that they would run the risk of being tortured there. Exceptional circumstances such as war or threat of war, domestic political instability or any other public emergency may not be used as justification for torture. An instruction given by a superior or a public authority may not be used as a justification for torture. "

    Article 13 obliges states to establish competent authorities so that anyone who claims to have been tortured or ill-treated in the respective state has the right to appeal to that authority, which will then investigate the case promptly and impartially.

    Article 16 prohibits any other cruel and inhumane treatment below the level of torture defined in Article 1.

    If the Anti-Torture Committee receives under Article 20 "well-founded indications [...] that torture is systematically taking place in the territory of a State Party, the Committee requests that State Party to assist in examining the information and to comment on the information for this purpose Provide information. ”If the Committee“ deems it justified, it may instruct one or more of its members to conduct a confidential investigation and report to it immediately. ”

    According to Article 28 , any State may "when signing or ratifying this Convention or acceding to it declare that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in Article 20."

    Domestic implementation

    With Art. 4 FoK, the states have committed themselves to penalizing violations of the prohibition of torture.

    Germany

    § 340 StGB-DE bodily harm in office .
    § 343 StGB-DE extortion of testimony .
    An independent investigation agency according to Art. 13 FoK is pending. Germany has receivedseveral warningsin this regard from the UN Committee against Torture (CAT).

    Austria

    § 312 StGB-AT torturing or neglecting a prisoner .
    § 312a StGB-AT torture .
    Austria had according to Art. 13 FoK instructs the Office for Internal Affairs (BIA) to do so. According to the report of the Austrian Human Rights Advisory Board (MRB), this body did not meet the requirement of independence and the criteria for an effective investigation. Then the Independent Administrative Senate was commissioned, which was also inadequate and was dissolved on January 1, 2014. Austria has receivedseveral warningsin this regard from the UN Committee against Torture (CAT).

    Liechtenstein

    § 312 StGB-FL torturing or neglecting a prisoner .
    An independent investigation agency according to Art. 13 FoK is pending.

    Switzerland

    Switzerland has ratified the UN Convention against Torture, but not implemented it. Neither torture nor mistreatment of prisoners is a criminal offense in Switzerland. In the cantons of Zurich (§ 148 GoG, cf. BGE 137 IV 269), St. Gallen and Appenzell Innerrhoden, civil servants enjoy relative immunity, cf. Art. 7 para. 2 lit b StPO-CH .
    In the event of abuse in police custody, a non-judicial body checks whether the immunity of the guilty police officer should be lifted or not for reasons of opportunity. The police officers are almost always given immunity in the event of violations of the prohibition of torture or mistreatment of prisoners. An independent investigative body in accordance with Art. 13 FoK is pending. Switzerland has received several warnings in this regard from the UN Committee against Torture (CAT).

    Monitoring the terms of the contract

    Compliance with the provisions of the Convention to monitor the relevant UN treaty body , the UN Committee against Torture ( Committee against Torture , CAT ), the periodic reports of the signatory states receives and evaluates. On June 22, 2006, the Optional Protocol ( OPCAT ) to the Anti-Torture Convention came into force, which for the signatory states set up the UN Sub-Committee for the Prevention of Torture as a further control body .

    criticism

    Critics criticize incomplete formulations in the term torture, because there are questionable exceptions:

    1. Torture is only considered “if this pain or suffering is caused by a member of the public service or another person acting in an official capacity, at their instigation or with their express or tacit consent.” In this sense, torture can only be caused by a functioning state which often in fact no longer exists in civil wars . Torture that takes place while civil order is being abolished would not fall under the UN Convention.
    2. The restriction that the expression does not encompass pain or suffering that merely results from, belongs to or is associated with legally permissible sanctions, also protects those states whose laws e.g. B. flogging or stoning as punishment or electroconvulsive therapy as " therapy ".
    3. The convention leaves states in which torture regimes in power open the possibility of terminating their participation in these proceedings even after they have been signed.
    4. The countries are reluctant to implement the UN Convention against Torture. Hardly any country has implemented Art. 13 FoK and created an independent investigative body to which those affected can turn and the case is then actually and effectively investigated. The UN Committee against Torture regularly states in its recommendations on state reports: « The Committee therefore reiterates its concern that (...) no independent and effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment are taking place (Articles 12, 13 and 16) . The Committee recommends that the State party (...) take all appropriate measures to ensure that all allegations of torture and ill-treatment by police officers are promptly and thoroughly investigated by independent bodies, without any institutional or hierarchical links between the investigators and the alleged suspects Offenders consist of the ranks of the police. ». See, for example, Point 19 in the 5th State Report Germany of December 12, 2011 . So it remains just a declaration of intent.

    Proponents emphasize an improvement in international human rights protection . They point out that torture is punishable under all circumstances, as well as the duty to extradite convicted perpetrators. The possibility of independent on-site inspections is also a deterrent. In addition, the states are obliged not only to prosecute their own citizens, but also, in case of doubt, citizens of foreign states, even if no own citizens are the victims. According to this principle, z. For example, the Bosnian citizen Duško Tadić was arrested in Germany and subsequently extradited to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague .

    See also

    Web links

    Individual evidence

    1. ↑ UN - Resolution 3452 (xxx)
    2. ^ United Nations Treaty Collection. Accessed April 7, 2019 .
    3. ↑ a b See 5th CAT report
    4. ^ Report of the Austrian Human Rights Advisory Council
    5. ↑ § 312 StGB-FL
    6. ↑ § 148 GoG
    7. ↑ BGE 137 IV 269
    8. ↑ See 6th state report  ( page no longer available , search in web archives ) of the CAT.@1@ 2Template: Dead Link / www.bj.admin.ch