The Experts below are selected from a list of 20601 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Orhun Hakan Yalincak - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
does the european convention allow a conviction to be based on evidence obtained through inhuman or Degrading Treatment
Social Science Research Network, 2013Co-Authors: Orhun Hakan YalincakAbstract:Whether the European Convention on Human Rights allows a conviction to be based upon evidence obtained through inhuman or Degrading Treatment -- contrary to Article 3 of the Convention -- has only recently been confronted by the European Court of Human Rights, and the answer remains disappointingly unclear. This essay critically explores the recent trend in the ECtHR’s Article 3 jurisprudence vis-a-vis Article 6 and observes a shift towards malleable “public interest” and “public safety” factors as the determinative criterion in recent cases dealing with the right to a fair trial contained in Article 6.
Steven C Greer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
is the prohibition against torture cruel inhuman and Degrading Treatment really absolute in international human rights law
Human Rights Law Review, 2015Co-Authors: Steven C GreerAbstract:A cardinal axiom of international human rights law is that the prohibition against torture, cruel, inhuman and Degrading Treatment is absolute in the sense that no exception can be accepted, defended, justified, or tolerated in any circumstance whatever. Yet, for several reasons this is deeply problematic. For a start, since absoluteness is not an express, inherent, self-evident, or necessary feature of the provisions in question, this status is a matter of attribution rather than, as the orthodoxy holds, inherent legal necessity. Other non-absolute interpretations are not only possible, but expressly underpin similar prohibitions in some celebrated national human rights instruments. It does not follow either, because the term ‘cruel, inhuman or Degrading Treatment’ is typically included in the same clauses which prohibit torture, that each of these very different types of harmful conduct must necessarily share the same status. The much-repeated claim that the prohibition is absolute in principle but relative in application is also unconvincing. Finally, it is not merely morally or legally, but also logically impossible for each of two competing instances of any ‘absolute’ right to be equally ‘absolute’ in any meaningful sense. The prohibition against torture, cruel, inhuman and Degrading Treatment in international human rights law can, at best therefore, only be ‘virtually’, rather than strictly, absolute. It applies, in other words, in all but the rarest circumstances but not, as the received wisdom maintains, to the exclusion of every possible justification, exoneration, excuse, or mitigation.
Margaret B Drew - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
convention against torture and other cruel inhuman or other Degrading Treatment or punishment shadow report on intimate partner abuse and sexual assault in the united states
Social Science Research Network, 2014Co-Authors: Margaret B DrewAbstract:Culturally, there is much tolerance of violence against women in the United States. The recent furor over the slow and inadequate response of the National Football League to players’ abuse of their intimate partners evidences the cultural diminishment of women and the tolerance of abuse of intimate partners. A particularly sad statistic that reflects the cultural tolerance of violence against girls is that, conservatively, one in five female teens report having experienced abuse in their relationships.
Stijn Smet - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the absolute prohibition of torture and inhuman or Degrading Treatment in article 3 echr truly a question of scope only
Social Science Research Network, 2013Co-Authors: Stijn SmetAbstract:In its principled rhetoric, the European Court of Human Rights consistently refers to the prohibition of torture and inhuman or Degrading Treatment in Article 3 ECHR as absolute. The Court has stated that ‘[e]ven in the most difficult of circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism or crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or Degrading Treatment or punishment’ and that ‘[t]he philosophical basis underpinning the absolute nature of the right under Article 3 does not allow for any exceptions […] or balancing of interests’. Taken at face value, these passages lead to a straightforward principled conclusion: because Article 3 ECHR is absolute, its application is a matter of definition only. In its principled rhetoric, the ECtHR indeed excludes any and all considerations of proportionality or balancing from the application of Article 3 ECHR. In practice, however, as others have shown, the Court’s case law does not live up to this promise of a genuinely ‘absolute’ Article 3. Hemme Battjes, for instance, has suggested that the Court uses ‘the label “absolute” ... for rhetorical effect’. If this analysis is correct, not much would be left of the firewall put in place by the ‘absolute nature’ of Article 3. It may well come crashing down in the face of proportionality and balancing. In this paper, I approach the question rather differently from Battjes. Instead of proposing alternative readings of the Court’s principled stance on the ‘absolute nature of Article 3’, I take that principle as my starting point and examine what it would take for the Court to truly live up to it. I first indicate how the prohibition of torture should function for its application to really be a matter of scope only. I then show – in line with the findings of Battjes and other scholars – that, in certain areas, the ECtHR’s case law does not live up to the promise of such an absolute right. From this, however, I do not draw the inference that Article 3 is – upon closer analysis – not really absolute. Instead, I indicate how the ECtHR could amend its reasoning in ‘problematic cases’, i.e. those in which it introduces elements of proportionality and balancing in its analysis.
Cvetana Crnobaric - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
torture vs other cruel inhuman and Degrading Treatment is the distinction real or apparent
Archives of General Psychiatry, 2007Co-Authors: Metin Basoglu, Maria Livanou, Cvetana CrnobaricAbstract:CONTEXT: After the reports of human rights abuses by the US military in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan, questions have been raised as to whether certain detention and interrogation procedures amount to torture. OBJECTIVE: To examine the distinction between various forms of ill Treatment and torture during captivity in terms of their relative psychological impact. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a population-based sample of survivors of torture from Sarajevo in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Banja Luka in Republica Srpska, Rijeka in Croatia, and Belgrade in Serbia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 279 survivors of torture accessed through linkage sampling in the community (Banja Luka, Sarajevo, and Rijeka) and among the members of 2 associations for war veterans and prisoners of war (Belgrade). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Scores on the Semi-structured Interview for Survivors of War, Exposure to Torture Scale, Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, and Clinician-Administered PTSD (posttraumatic stress disorder) Scale for DSM-IV. RESULTS: Psychological manipulations, humiliating Treatment, exposure to aversive environmental conditions, and forced stress positions showed considerable overlap with physical torture stressors in terms of associated distress and uncontrollability. In regression analyses, physical torture did not significantly relate to posttraumatic stress disorder (odds ratio, 1.41, 95% confidence interval, 0.89-2.25) or depression (odds ratio, 1.41, 95% confidence interval, 0.71-2.78). The traumatic stress impact of torture (physical or nonphysical torture and ill Treatment) seemed to be determined by perceived uncontrollability and distress associated with the stressors. CONCLUSIONS: Ill Treatment during captivity, such as psychological manipulations, humiliating Treatment, and forced stress positions, does not seem to be substantially different from physical torture in terms of the severity of mental suffering they cause, the underlying mechanism of traumatic stress, and their long-term psychological outcome. Thus, these procedures do amount to torture, thereby lending support to their prohibition by international law. Language: en
-
torture vs other cruel inhuman and Degrading Treatment commentary is the distinction real or apparent
Archives of General Psychiatry, 2007Co-Authors: Metin Basoglu, Maria Livanou, Cvetana Crnobaric, Steven H MilesAbstract:Context: After the reports of human rights abuses by the US military in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan, questions have been raised as to whether certain detention and interrogation procedures amount to torture. Objective: To examine the distinction between various forms of ill Treatment and torture during captivity in terms of their relative psychological impact. Design and Setting: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a population-based sample of survivors of torture from Sarajevo in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Banja Luka in Republica Srpska, Rijeka in Croatia, and Belgrade in Serbia. Participants: A total of 279 survivors of torture accessed through linkage sampling in the community (Banja Luka, Sarajevo, and Rijeka) and among the members of 2 associations for war veterans and prisoners of war (Belgrade). Main Outcome Measures: Scores on the Semi-structured Interview for Survivors of War, Exposure to Torture Scale, Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, and Clinician-Administered PTSD (posttraumatic stress disorder) Scale for DSM-IV. Results: Psychological manipulations, humiliating Treatment, exposure to aversive environmental conditions, and forced stress positions showed considerable overlap with physical torture stressors in terms of associated distress and uncontrollability. In regression analyses, physical torture did not significantly relate to posttraumatic stress disorder (odds ratio, 1.41,95% confidence interval, 0.89-2.25) or depression (odds ratio, 1.41,95% confidence interval, 0.71-2.78). The traumatic stress impact of torture (physical or nonphysical torture and ill Treatment) seemed to be determined by perceived uncontrollability and distress associated with the stressors. Conclusions: III Treatment during captivity, such as psychological manipulations, humiliating Treatment, and forced stress positions, does not seem to be substantially different from physical torture in terms of the severity of mental suffering they cause, the underlying mechanism of traumatic stress, and their long-term psychological outcome. Thus, these procedures do amount to torture, thereby lending support to their prohibition by international law.