Conclusion

This chapter explores the scope and limits of the book’s central claims, extending the argument to other circumstances and norms and describing cases that do not fit the theory. The chapter examines the recent variation between the United States and Europe on the question of torture. The human rights picture in Europe has improved over the past few decades in part because European institutions have been clearer than the United States about prohibiting cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, eliminating the antitorture norm’s specificity problem, and preventing a slippery slope that so often ends with torture. Finally, the chapter broadens the argument by demonstrating how the pervasive belief that autocrats have an edge over rule-bound democracies has tempted certain elected officials to chip away at their own liberal-democratic institutions.

THE PROHIBITION OF TORTURE, CRUEL OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT IN CLOSED INSTITUTIONS

In the paper “The prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment in closed Institutions” the author has examined the obxervasnce of persons’ in detention, custody or imprisonment human rights in the European regional acts and national instruments as well as the provision of health care for detainees and convicted persons alike.All basic human rights’ documents, namely: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nations and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms state that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, degrading his or her human dignity”. All persons who have been punished, regardless of the crimes for which they were convicted, have the right to humane treatment and respect for their personality. No actions of people, whatever they may be, justify the inhuman treatment of them or the humiliation of their personality.

Prisoners During the Pandemic

In connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, all countries of the world are taking actions to minimize the spread of the virus. These actions interfere with civil rights and liberties. They particularly affect convicts who serve prison sentences, as such sentences deprive them many of their rights or significantly restrict them. Recognizing the situation of prisoners at this difficult time, in March 2020, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (CPT) issued the Statement of principles relating to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in the context of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19)1, while the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment prepared Advice to States parties and national preventive mechanisms to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The purpose of this paper is to determine whether our country, while taking certain actions, takes into account the recommendations contained in both aforementioned documents.

Case of victim torture in forensic expert practice

The article contains a case of causing violent acts, namely torture, which corresponds to the section «Physical evidence of torture» of the «Istanbul Protocol». The morphological manifestations of bodily injuries are given, which are sufficiently informative for their further assessment by law enforcement agencies as manifestations of torture and torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Aim of the work. Forensic medical characteristics of morphological manifestations of bodily injury as manifestations of torture and torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Material and methods. The material of the research was the archival data of the Luhansk Regional Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination. Well-known forensic and statistical research methods were used. Results. During the forensic examination of the corpse of gr. There were at least 100 injuries in the form of numerous bruises, bruises, wounds, a strangulation furrow on the neck, and changes in the anus. Conclusion. Revealed during the forensic medical examination of the corpse of gr. M. at least 100 bodily injuries in the form of numerous abrasions, bruises, wounds, a strangulation groove on the neck and changes in the anus were identified by law enforcement agencies as manifestations of torture and torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in accordance with the section «Physical evidence torture» of the «Istanbul Protocol».

Admissibility of Evidence Obtained by Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. Does the European Court of Human Rights Offer a Coherent and Convincing Approach?

The paper presents and assesses the approach of the ECtHR to admissibility of evidence obtained through torture and inhuman or degrading treatment in the criminal process. The author examines the content of the standard, its justifications and the consistency of the ECtHR's reasoning. The paper refers both to the admissibility of statements and real evidence as well as to primary and derivate evidence obtained in violation of Article 3 echr. The admissibility of evidence obtained by oppressive conduct of private individuals is also analysed. The assessment of the Strasbourg Court’s case law indicates that its approach is quite nuanced and, unfortunately, inconsistent and incoherent. Its main shortcoming is the lack of an in-depth analysis of the rationale for the inadmissibility of evidence obtained by maltreatment and the piecemeal treatment of individual categories of such evidence devoid of attempt to comprehensively address its admissibility in criminal proceedings.

Ireland v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25, European Court of Human Rights

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Ireland v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25, European Court of Human Rights. This case concerned whether interrogation techniques employed by the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland between 1971 and 1975 amounted to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. More generally, the case note considers the differences between absolute, limited, and qualified rights. The case predates the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

The Right to Protection of Forcibly Displaced Persons During the Covid-19 Pandemic

The unprecedented shutdown of borders and restrictions on migration in response to the Covid-19 pandemic have put the core principles of refugee protection to test and resulted in the erosion of the right to asylum and violations of the principle of non-refoulment (no one should be returned to a country where they would face torture; cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; or punishment and other irreparable harm). Covid-19 is being used by some governments as an excuse to block people from the right to seek asylum and implement their nationalist agendas of border closures and anti-immigration policies.

Cо-perpetrators of torture: national and convention definition framework

The article is prepared in continuation of development of author's dissertation researches. The paper reveals the peculiarities of objective and subjective features of cо-perpetration in torture (both on the basis of the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and taking into account the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. When interpreting national criminal law norms in the light of convention provisions, the requirements of two-frame criminal law research are met. The authors' positions are supported by message from human rights organizations, decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, and theoretical modeling. The article contains the following conclusions. A co-perpetrator of torture may commit this criminal offense by his or her own actions or omissions, use another person as a “means” of committing a criminal offense, or delegate the commission of a criminal offense to another person. A co-perpetrator of torture may join in committing torture at any stage of the commission of this criminal offense. If, under the circumstances of complicity in torture, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity direct torture, he or she is the perpetrator (co-perpetrator) of the offense. If, in complicity in torture, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity creates the conditions for committing the offense, he or she should be recognized as the organizer, instigator or accomplice of the torture (depending on the role he or she has played). If, in complicity in torture, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity doesn't interfere of torture, he or she is the accomplice to torture. Not preventing torture should not be confused with the mental violence that can be used to torture. Article 1 of the 1984 Convention also covers cases of involvement in the torture of public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

The Political Penal System in the Honecker Era Prison system, detention conditions, political prisoners and the Ministry of State Security in the GDR (1970–1989)

In the German Democratic Republic (GDR), both political and criminal prisoners after their conviction were kept together in prisons under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior. Formally, the same rules applied to them, but opponents of the regime (as in many dictatorships) were often treated more strictly. Supervision by the public prosecutor’s office was mostly limited to formal questions. Compared to the 1950s, detention conditions improved until the era of Erich Honecker: assaults by the guards became less frequent and contacts with family were more often tolerated. However, after phases of liberalisation, the conditions of detention also tightened time and time again. Basically nothing changed in the degrading treatment and omnipresent regimentation. Compared to the early years, work assignments were even better organised, which led to an increased workload for the inmates. The surveillance measures of the State Security (Stasi), which employed many informers among the prison staff as well as among the inmates, were also perfected in the later years. As a form of “disruptive measures”, the secret police occasionally saw to it that the very persons who did not cooperate but appeared to be particularly “dangerous” to the secret police were thought of as informers. Concealing political persecution in this way was the result of a subtle regard for public opinion in the West, which had a comparatively strong impact on the penal system of the GDR. Another peculiarity was the ransom of political prisoners, which from 1963 led to the early release of an average of 1200 prisoners per year.

Unconstitutionality of Access to Abortion for Embryo-Pathological Reasons

This article comments on the Polish Constitutional Tribunal judgment delivered on 22 October 2020 on the unconstitutionality of the provision of the Act of 1993 allowing for the termination of pregnancy for embryo-pathological reasons. The author provides a commentary on the judgment from the point of view of its formal features and content and demonstrates that it violates in both respects the right to privacy and freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, as it was passed without taking into account nor properly balancing the rights of a pregnant mother in a situation of particular vulnerability.