I.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

or Punishment
"Torture" means 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.
Obligations of State Parties

II. "Anti-Torture Act of 2009".

 "Torture" refers to an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is
intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him/her or a third person
information or a confession; punishing him/her for an act he/she or a third person has committed
or is suspected of having committed; or intimidating or coercing him/her 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 person in authority or agent of a
person in authority. It does not include pain or Buffering arising only from, inherent in or
incidental to lawful sanctions.
III.
Under international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL), the
definition of torture comprises three main aspects:
1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is inflicted on a
person;
2. The act must be intentionally inflicted;
3. The act must be instrumental for such purposes as: (a) obtaining from the individual or a third
person information or a confession, or (b) punishing him/her for an act he/she or a third person
has committed or is suspected of having committed, or (c) intimidating him/her or a third person,
or (d) coercing him/her or a third person, or (e) for any reason based on discrimination of any
kind.
What distinguishes torture from other forms of ill-treatment, which include other cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment and outrages upon personal dignity, is the third – purposive – aspect.
Inhuman and cruel treatment is defined as the infliction of severe physical or mental pain or
suffering, which goes beyond mere degradation or humiliation. Outrages upon personal dignity
are acts that humiliate, degrade or otherwise violate the dignity of the person to such a degree
as to be generally recognized as an outrage upon personal dignity. Unlike torture, there is no
requirement that these acts be inflicted for a specific purpose. IHL applies to all parties to an
armed conflict.
Gäfgen v. Germany
Facts:
A man had lured a child into his flat, killed him through suffocation and hidden the body.
Afterwards he demanded a ransom of the parents who were unaware that their child had
already been murdered. They paid the ransom after which the police followed and arrested the
suspect. During his interrogation the police, acting under the assumption that the child was still
alive, threatened the suspect with considerable suffering if he persisted in refusing to disclose
the child’s whereabouts. The suspect subsequently confessed to the crime and disclosed the
whereabouts of the child’s body. The German courts, having established that the confession of
the suspect had been extracted under duress, did not allow it as evidence during the ensuing
criminal trial. However, they did declare the evidence obtained as a result of the ill-treatment,
including the child’s body and the tire tracks found at the dumping site, admissible. During the
trial the suspect confessed again, despite having been made aware of his right to remain silent
and of the inadmissibility of his earlier confession as evidence.
Ruling:
The Court held that the threat of torture in the instant case constituted inhuman treatment and
made it very clear that no situation can justify an infringement of art. 3. The Court stated that
“[t]orture, inhuman or degrading treatment cannot be inflicted even in circumstances where the
life of an individual is at risk” and –under its assessment of the alleged violation of art. 6 –
“[b]eing absolute, there can be no weighing of other interests against article 3. In the Court’s
view, neither the protection of human life nor the securing of a criminal conviction may be
obtained at the cost of compromising the protection of the absolute right not to be subjected to
ill-treatment proscribed by Article 3.” The absolute prohibition of torture and inhuman or
degrading treatment thus remains protected to its full extent against any scenario, including the
ticking time bomb one.\
The applicant had claimed that his right to a fair trial had been violated by the fact that the
evidence obtained as a result of the threat of torture had been declared admissible for use
during the criminal trial. The majority of the Grand Chamber found against him and held that art.
6 had not been violated. It did so because “contrary to Article 3, Article 6 does not enshrine an
absolute right”, a “criminal trial’s fairness [is] only at stake if it has been shown that the breach of
Article 3 had a bearing on the outcome of the proceedings” and in the present case the
“conviction [was] based exclusively on the new, full confession made by the applicant at the
trial”. The Court thus held that the causal link between the threat of torture and the conviction
had been broken: “the breach of Article 3 in the investigation proceedings had no bearing on the
applicant’s confession at the trial”.
Art. 124. Arbitrary detention. — Any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds,
detains a person, shall suffer;
1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period, if the detention has not exceeded three days;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the detention has
continued more than three but not more than fifteen days;
3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has continued for more than fifteen days but not
more than six months; and
4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have exceeded six months.
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory
confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for the detention of
any person.
Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. —
The penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or
employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such
person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of; twelve (12) hours, for crimes or
offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or
offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent and thirty-six (36) hours, for
crimes, or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent.
In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be
allowed upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or
counsel. (As amended by E.O. Nos. 59 and 272, Nov. 7, 1986 and July 25, 1987, respectively).
Art. 126. Delaying release. — The penalties provided for in Article 124 shall be imposed upon
any public officer or employee who delays for the period of time specified therein the
performance of any judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner,
or unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner or the proceedings upon
any petition for the liberation of such person.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 7

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific
experimentation.

Article 9

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary
arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in
accordance with such procedure as are established by law.

2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest
and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.

3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or
other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a
reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be
detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other
stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement.

4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take
proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness
of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.

5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable
right to compensation.
Article 10

1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the
inherent dignity of the human person.