Criminal Liability For State-Sponsored Torture
I. Introduction: Criminal Liability for State-Sponsored Torture
State-sponsored torture refers to acts of physical or psychological harm inflicted on individuals by state agents—police, military, or intelligence personnel—or with state consent or acquiescence.
Legal Framework:
International Law
United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), 1984
Article 1 defines torture as intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering for purposes like coercion, punishment, intimidation, or discrimination.
Article 2 requires states to criminalize torture and prosecute perpetrators.
International Criminal Law
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), 1998: Torture is a crime against humanity if committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack.
Perpetrators, including state officials, can be individually prosecuted.
Domestic Law
India: IPC Sections 330, 331 (voluntarily causing hurt), 302/304 (if death occurs), and Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) remedies.
USA: Federal law prohibits torture under 18 U.S.C. §§2340–2340A.
UK: Criminal Justice Act and incorporation of UNCAT into domestic law.
Criminal Liability arises for:
Direct perpetrators (state agents).
Supervisors who order, permit, or acquiesce in torture.
States may face international responsibility, but individual agents can be prosecuted in national or international courts.
II. Case Law Examples
*Case 1 – Filártiga v. Peña-Irala (USA, 1980)
Facts:
Paraguayan police inspector Peña-Irala tortured and killed Joelito Filártiga.
Victim’s family filed a civil suit in the US under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).
Legal Issues:
State-sponsored torture under international human rights law.
Accountability of foreign officials in US courts.
Outcome:
US Court ruled Peña-Irala liable for torture, establishing that torture violates international law even outside the perpetrator’s home country.
Significance:
Landmark case establishing extraterritorial jurisdiction for acts of state-sponsored torture.
*Case 2 – Prosecutor v. Furundžija (ICTY, 1998)
Facts:
During the Bosnian war, Furundžija, a Croatian soldier, tortured detainees.
Legal Issues:
Violations of the Geneva Conventions and customary international law.
Outcome:
ICTY convicted Furundžija for torture as a war crime, sentencing 10 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Established that individuals, including military personnel, can be criminally liable for acts of torture even in wartime.
*Case 3 – Prosecutor v. Akayesu (ICTR, 1998)
Facts:
Jean-Paul Akayesu, mayor in Rwanda, oversaw widespread torture and killings during the 1994 genocide.
Legal Issues:
Torture as part of a systematic attack against civilians, constituting a crime against humanity.
Outcome:
Convicted for torture and crimes against humanity. Life imprisonment imposed.
Significance:
Confirmed that state officials and local leaders are individually liable for torture when part of systematic abuses.
*Case 4 – Ireland v. United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, 1978)
Facts:
UK security forces used “five techniques” (wall-standing, hooding, stress positions) on detainees in Northern Ireland.
Legal Issues:
Whether interrogation methods amounted to torture under European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 3.
Outcome:
ECHR ruled the acts constituted inhuman and degrading treatment, but not “torture” under its definition at the time.
Significance:
Clarified legal distinction between torture and inhuman or degrading treatment; influenced domestic policies and definitions.
*Case 5 – United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. (Guantanamo, ongoing)
Facts:
Alleged torture by US officials and contractors during interrogations of terror suspects.
Legal Issues:
Violation of domestic law (18 U.S.C. §§2340–2340A) and international prohibitions on torture.
Outcome:
Criminal proceedings and debates over admissibility of evidence obtained under torture are ongoing.
Significance:
Illustrates modern challenges of prosecuting state-sponsored torture under domestic and international law.
*Case 6 – India: Custodial Torture in Manipur (People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Manipur, 1997)
Facts:
Allegations of police torturing detainees in Manipur.
Legal Issues:
Violations of IPC Sections 330, 331 (voluntarily causing hurt) and fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution (Article 21 – right to life).
Outcome:
Supreme Court recognized custodial torture as gross violation of human rights. Ordered reforms and compensation for victims.
Significance:
Landmark case establishing criminal liability of state officials for torture in India.
III. Key Legal Principles from Case Law
Individual criminal liability: State officials can be personally prosecuted.
Universal jurisdiction: Torture is a crime under international law, enforceable beyond national borders.
Systematic abuse constitutes crime against humanity: Not limited to wartime scenarios.
Civil remedies exist: Victims can claim compensation (e.g., Filártiga).
Custodial and interrogation settings are monitored: Domestic courts enforce accountability for torture.
IV. Conclusion
State-sponsored torture is a serious international and domestic crime.
Case law demonstrates that perpetrators—whether police, military, or political leaders—face criminal liability.
Criminal accountability may include imprisonment, international trial, fines, and civil liability.
Legal reforms and independent monitoring bodies are crucial to prevent and punish torture effectively.
RELATED Blog
comments