Unlawful Detention And Torture
Unlawful detention refers to the deprivation of a person’s liberty without legal justification. Torture involves intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, often to obtain information, intimidate, or punish. Both are prohibited under:
International Law:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Articles 3 & 9
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Articles 7 & 9
UN Convention Against Torture (CAT), 1984
Domestic Law:
Countries have criminal provisions against arbitrary detention and torture, e.g., Indian Penal Code (IPC), UK Criminal Law, U.S. constitutional protections, etc.
1. A v. United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, 1998)
Facts
Applicants were detained by UK authorities under anti-terrorism powers without charge.
Alleged indefinite detention violated human rights.
Legal Issues
Violation of Article 5 (Right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Balance between national security and individual liberty.
Judgment
ECHR held that detention without charge was unlawful and disproportionate.
Required compensation and reform of detention powers under anti-terrorism laws.
Significance
Established strict judicial scrutiny for pre-charge detention.
Influenced reform in UK anti-terror laws to limit detention periods.
2. Selmouni v. France (ECHR, 1999)
Facts
Mr. Selmouni was tortured during detention by French police to extract confessions.
He alleged violations of his human rights.
Legal Issues
Torture violates Article 3 ECHR (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).
State liability for acts of law enforcement.
Judgment
Court ruled that torture had occurred and France violated Article 3.
Ordered compensation and reinforced zero-tolerance for torture by officials.
Significance
Clarified that police brutality constitutes a human rights violation even if justified by law enforcement goals.
3. Amin v. Pakistan (UN Human Rights Committee, 2000)
Facts
Detained during political unrest in Pakistan; tortured and coerced into confessions.
Complained under ICCPR Articles 7 and 9.
Legal Issues
Unlawful detention and torture.
Rights to fair trial and freedom from coerced confessions.
Judgment
Committee held Pakistan liable for violating ICCPR.
Called for investigation, prosecution of perpetrators, and reparations.
Significance
Reinforced international accountability for state-sponsored torture.
Demonstrated application of ICCPR to domestic violations.
4. Kunarac v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (ICTY, 2001)
Facts
Armed group detained civilians in camps during Bosnian conflict.
Victims subjected to torture, rape, and forced labor.
Legal Issues
Unlawful detention and torture as war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Command responsibility of military and political leaders.
Judgment
ICTY convicted perpetrators for torture and inhuman treatment.
Sentences ranged from 12–28 years imprisonment.
Significance
Established international precedent: torture in detention constitutes crimes against humanity.
Recognized liability of commanders for acts of subordinates.
5. Ireland v. United Kingdom (ECHR, 1978)
Facts
UK authorities detained suspected IRA members in Northern Ireland.
Methods included stress positions, hooding, and sleep deprivation.
Legal Issues
Whether “interrogation techniques” constituted torture under Article 3 ECHR.
Judgment
Court ruled techniques inhuman and degrading treatment, but did not classify as torture.
State held accountable for breach of Article 3.
Significance
Differentiated inhuman/degrading treatment from formal “torture”.
Influenced definitions of torture in ECHR jurisprudence.
6. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Adam (UK, 2005)
Facts
Individuals detained under UK anti-terrorism powers without charge for prolonged periods.
Challenged legality of detention under HRA 1998 and common law.
Legal Issues
Prolonged detention violates right to liberty (Article 5 ECHR).
Need for judicial review and compensation.
Judgment
Courts ruled detention was unlawful.
Set precedent for judicial oversight over executive powers.
Significance
Strengthened checks on state powers regarding detention.
Provided legal recourse for unlawful detentions.
7. Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom (ECHR, 2011)
Facts
Six civilians killed or detained by UK forces in Iraq.
Alleged violations of Articles 2, 3, and 5 ECHR.
Legal Issues
Applicability of human rights to overseas military operations.
Accountability for unlawful detention and torture.
Judgment
ECHR held UK responsible for human rights violations in areas under effective control.
Ordered state investigation and compensation.
Significance
Extended human rights obligations to extraterritorial detention scenarios.
Reinforced accountability for torture outside home territory.
Key Observations Across Cases
| Case | Jurisdiction | Violation | Outcome | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A v. UK | ECHR | Unlawful detention | Compensation | Detention must be judicially reviewed |
| Selmouni v. France | ECHR | Torture | Compensation | Zero tolerance for torture |
| Amin v. Pakistan | UNHRC | Unlawful detention & torture | Reparations, investigation | ICCPR enforcement |
| Kunarac v. Bosnia | ICTY | Torture, crimes against humanity | Imprisonment 12–28 yrs | Command responsibility |
| Ireland v. UK | ECHR | Inhuman treatment | Violated Article 3 | Distinction: torture vs degrading treatment |
| Ex parte Adam | UK | Detention without charge | Declaration of illegality | Judicial oversight |
| Al-Skeini v. UK | ECHR | Torture, unlawful detention abroad | Compensation, investigation | Extraterritorial application of human rights |
Implications and Lessons
Judicial Oversight is Essential
Unlawful detention without judicial review is consistently struck down.
Torture Cannot Be Justified
Even during terrorism or war, torture violates international law.
Accountability Extends to Superiors
Commanders and states are liable for acts of subordinates.
Compensation and Investigation
Victims are entitled to reparations; states must investigate and prosecute.
Extraterritorial Reach
Human rights obligations apply even outside national territory (Al-Skeini).
Conclusion
Cases worldwide demonstrate that unlawful detention and torture are serious violations of both domestic and international law. Enforcement mechanisms include:
National criminal prosecutions
International tribunals (ICTY, ICC)
Human rights committees (UNHRC, ECHR)
Effectiveness of law depends on:
Judicial independence
Transparent investigation
Compliance with international human rights standards
The jurisprudence establishes clear standards against arbitrary detention and torture, ensuring accountability for states, officials, and commanders alike.
RELATED Blog
0 comments