Criminal Liability For Custodial Torture Under International Human Rights Treaties
Background: Custodial Torture and International Law
Definition:
Custodial torture refers to physical or mental abuse inflicted by law enforcement officials, prison authorities, or state agents on persons in detention.
Key International Treaties:
Convention Against Torture (CAT), 1984 – obliges states to criminalize torture and prosecute perpetrators.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966 – protects rights against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (Articles 7 and 10).
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948 – Article 5 prohibits torture.
Optional Protocol to the CAT (OPCAT), 2002 – monitors places of detention to prevent torture.
State Obligations:
Criminalize torture.
Investigate allegations promptly and impartially.
Hold perpetrators accountable, irrespective of rank.
Case 1: Aksoy v. Turkey (European Court of Human Rights, 1996)
Facts:
Applicant detained in Turkey on suspicion of terrorism.
Subjected to electric shocks, beatings, and psychological abuse in police custody.
Legal Issue:
Whether the treatment violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture).
Outcome:
ECtHR found Turkey liable for torture.
Ordered monetary compensation to the victim.
Significance:
Recognized state responsibility for torture by police officers.
Established that torture includes both physical and psychological abuse.
Case 2: Ireland v. United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, 1978)
Facts:
UK authorities detained suspected IRA members.
Used “five techniques” including wall-standing, hooding, sleep deprivation, and noise to extract information.
Legal Issue:
Whether these methods constituted torture under international law.
Outcome:
Court classified techniques as inhuman and degrading treatment but stopped short of “torture” under Article 3.
Highlighted the threshold between inhuman treatment and torture.
Significance:
Clarified that custodial abuse must be severe to qualify as torture.
Established a standard for assessing severity of abuse internationally.
Case 3: Selmouni v. France (ECtHR, 1999)
Facts:
Applicant arrested and beaten by police.
Severe injuries inflicted including beatings, slapping, and psychological humiliation.
Legal Issue:
Applicability of Article 3 for custodial torture.
Outcome:
ECtHR held treatment constituted torture, not merely inhuman or degrading.
France held liable and ordered compensation.
Significance:
Reinforced that physical violence combined with psychological pressure qualifies as torture.
Showed that criminal liability can extend to state officials.
Case 4: Aydin v. Turkey (ECtHR, 1997)
Facts:
Applicant’s daughter detained and allegedly raped in police custody.
State initially denied allegations.
Legal Issue:
State liability for torture and sexual abuse in custody.
Outcome:
Court found violation of Article 3 (torture) and Article 8 (family life).
Ordered state compensation.
Significance:
Expanded custodial torture to include sexual violence by officials.
Recognized psychological impact on family members.
Case 5: Kunarac, Kovač & Vuković v. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY, 2001)
Facts:
Defendants accused of rape, enslavement, and torture in detention camps during the Bosnian conflict.
Legal Issue:
Individual criminal responsibility for torture under international humanitarian law and human rights law.
Outcome:
ICTY convicted defendants of torture, enslavement, and crimes against humanity.
Established that commanders and direct perpetrators can be criminally liable.
Significance:
Demonstrated that custodial torture in conflict situations is punishable under international criminal law.
Emphasized personal liability of officials, even in wartime.
Case 6: Argentina “Dirty War” Cases (Jorge Rafael Videla, 1985)
Facts:
During Argentina’s military dictatorship, detainees were subjected to systematic torture, disappearances, and killings.
Legal Issue:
Accountability for state-sponsored custodial torture and crimes against humanity.
Outcome:
Videla and other officials convicted of torture and murder under national and international law.
Sentences included life imprisonment.
Significance:
Set a precedent that state officials cannot claim immunity for torture.
Reinforced principles from the CAT and customary international law.
Case 7: Nepal Context – Torture Allegations under NHRC
Facts:
Complaints received by the Nepal Human Rights Commission (NHRC) alleging custodial torture by police.
Legal Issue:
Nepalese state obligation under CAT (ratified in 1991).
Outcome:
NHRC investigated; some cases referred to police for prosecution under Section 10 of Torture (Crime and Punishment) Act, 2053.
Perpetrators faced imprisonment and disciplinary action.
Significance:
Nepal criminalized torture domestically in line with international obligations.
Shows the combination of human rights oversight and criminal prosecution in Nepal.
Case 8: Al-Skeini v. UK (European Court of Human Rights, 2011)
Facts:
UK forces detained and allegedly abused civilians in Iraq.
Legal Issue:
Extraterritorial liability for custodial torture by state agents.
Outcome:
Court held UK responsible for human rights violations, even outside national territory.
Significance:
Extends criminal liability of state actors beyond borders.
Important for understanding international jurisdiction over torture.
Synthesis of Case Law Principles
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Issue | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aksoy v. Turkey | ECtHR | Physical & psychological abuse in police custody | State liable, compensation | State responsible for torture by officials |
| Ireland v. UK | ECtHR | Interrogation “five techniques” | Inhuman treatment, not torture | Threshold between abuse and torture |
| Selmouni v. France | ECtHR | Beatings & humiliation | Torture recognized, compensation | Confirms physical + psychological = torture |
| Aydin v. Turkey | ECtHR | Sexual abuse in custody | Violation of torture & family rights | Custodial torture includes sexual violence |
| Kunarac et al. | ICTY | Torture, enslavement in camps | Conviction, crimes against humanity | Individual criminal liability in conflict |
| Argentina “Dirty War” | Argentina/Intl Law | Systematic torture | Convictions, life imprisonment | State officials not immune |
| NHRC Nepal Cases | Nepal | Police torture complaints | Imprisonment & disciplinary action | Domestic enforcement of CAT obligations |
| Al-Skeini v. UK | ECtHR | Extraterritorial abuse | State liable | Jurisdictional reach of human rights law |
Key Takeaways
Custodial torture is criminal under international law, including CAT and ICCPR.
Liability applies to direct perpetrators, superiors, and state actors.
Both physical and psychological abuse can qualify as torture.
Sexual violence and abuse of family members can be recognized as custodial torture.
State liability can extend extraterritorially.
Domestic law (like Nepal’s Torture Act and NHRC investigations) complements international obligations.
RELATED Blog
comments