The Parliamentary Ombudsman of Finland as a National Preventive Mechanism under the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

2008 ◽  
Vol 77 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 163-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jari Pirjola
2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-209
Author(s):  
Stephanie Schlickewei

On 26 June 1987, the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (uncat) entered into force. The comprehensive set of regulations of the Convention aimed at ensuring a more effective implementation of the international community’s common endeavours to eradicate torture globally. Nevertheless, torture practice still prevails in many countries. New crises, such as the international fight against terrorism, constantly compromise the achievement of the Convention’s overall objective; in particular, they present a great challenge to States Parties’ compliance with the uncat’s explicit nonrefoulement obligation of Art. 3 uncat. Aiming for the transfer of a person to another State and in a bid to nevertheless satisfy their international obligations, States Parties tend to rely on so-called diplomatic assurances from the receiving State, thereby potentially exposing the individual to the risk of being subjected to torture following the transfer. Being aware of the new challenges to the protection of Art. 3 uncat, in 2015, the United Nations Committee against Torture finally decided to undertake a comprehensive review of its General Comment No. 1 (1997). As the text of 1997 was considered to no longer meet the needs of the States with respect to the new challenges of the 21st century, the revision was inter alia aimed to also explicitly address the alarming trend of the application of diplomatic assurances and to include an assessment of their legitimate use in the context of Art. 3 uncat. This article outlines the aforementioned review process with regard to the use of diplomatic assurances in the context of torture and analyses the question of their legitimacy under international law with respect to the uncat and in light of and in comparison to the European Court of Human Right’s jurisdiction in this context.


2020 ◽  
pp. 48-53
Author(s):  
Hélène Cissé

This chapter looks at the first cases against Hissène Habré in Dakar. On 25 January 2000, Souleymane Guengueng and seven other Chadian victims, as civil parties, lodged a complaint against Habré in Dakar for acts of torture and other inhumane and degrading treatment, in application of the United Nations Convention against Torture. Following the complaint, on 3 February 2000, the investigating judges charged Habré with knowingly aiding and abetting in the commission of crimes against humanity, acts of torture, and barbarity against the plaintiffs between June of 1982 and December of 1990: the period during which he served as President of the Republic of Chad. Senegalese public opinion was and would remain divided throughout the criminal proceedings. Hélène Cissé then discusses her role as Habré's defence attorney from 2000 to 2004, giving a singular account of the little-known early cases against Habré.


2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 365-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm D Evans

In October 2000 an informal working group of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights met to discuss the latest drafts of an Optional Protocol to the 1984 United Nations Convention against Torture. The Working Group itself met for its 9th session in February 2001 and its 10th session was held in January 2002.2 The primary purpose of this Optional Protocol is to create a new international mechanism that will have a preventive role and which would operate by conducting visits to states and to places of detention within states and, in the light of such visits, enter into a ‘dialogue’ with the state concerned in order to help them ensure that torture does not occur. The origins of this initiative lie in a proposal formally tabled in the early 1980s during the negotiations that led up to the adoption of the UNCAT itself but at that time it was clear that so radical a move as the establishment of an international body with an automatic right of entry into any place of detention would be unacceptable within the broader international community.3 However, the idea was taken up on a regional level within Europe and in 1987 the Council of Europe adopted the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which established the European Committee of the same name (known as the CPT), very much by way of an example to the rest of the world, or so it was thought.4


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document