NationStates Jolt Archive


Convention to Ban Torture Proposal

Syreene
25-04-2006, 18:22
I hadn't seen anything that specifically discussed this, so I made a proposal today that needs your support.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Art 1: Torture is causing you pain on purpose to make you own up to a
misdeed, or to punish you, or to frighten you. But one may also torture you because of your race or ethnic group, or because of your religion or your ideas. Those who torture you obey orders coming from their superiors, or those superiors close theirs eyes, which is the same thing.

Art. 2: Your country must take all measures so that torture is never practiced.
Even if there is war, even if there is a rebellion, or whatever, one has no right to torture.

Even if orders have been given, one has no right to torture you. Which means that one must disobey those orders.

Art. 3: One has no right to send you by force to a country where one knows that you run a risk of being tortured.

Art. 4: Your country must include in its laws the prohibition of torture. As with other crimes, sentences will be set for torturers and their accomplices.

Art. 5: This prohibition applies even if you are tortured in a place which is not on the territory itself of your country (as on a boat belonging to it, for example).

Art. 6: If a foreigner guilty of acts of torture is in your country, whatever his
nationality, he must be arrested, detained, and he has the right to contact his
embassy or consulate.

Art. 7: He must be treated correctly and judged according to the law, as if he were a citizen of your country.

Art. 8: If his country claims him, he can be sent back if that country itself belongs to the Convention. Otherwise, one must determine if there is a rule authorizing his being sent back.

Art. 9: States belonging to the Convention commit to providing all the information necessary to the investigation.

Art. 10: Policemen, gendarmes, military men, medical doctors, civil servants, prison wardens must receive instructions formally prohibiting them from using torture of any kind.

Art. 11: The authorities of your country must keep a watch on prisons, police
headquarters, police stations, and all places where prisoners are kept, in order to ensure that they are not subjected to torture.

Art. 12: If the authorities think that torture can have occurred, they must request an investigation.

Art. 13: If you have been tortured, you must have the possibility of making a formal complaint. And you must be protected against threats and intimidation.

Art. 14: If you have been tortured, you are entitled to a compensation, but you are also entitled to being treated medically, to finding work again, to recover property that was taken from you. If someone dies as a result of undergoing torture, his family is entitled to a compensation.

Art. 15: Declarations made under torture are not valid, except to denounce the torturer.

Art. 16: The authorities of your country will make sure that no person will allow himself to perform cruel, humiliating acts which, if one let it, could transform into torture, such as it is defined in Art. 1.
Gruenberg
25-04-2006, 18:34
There is one UN resolution about torture already, but this looks much more thorough. One starting comment would be to make the pronouns gender-neutral, where possible: the references to "he" may attract some criticism.

Question about Article 3: what does that mean, precisely? Could it be reworded in such a way that it grants states the right to refuse extradition?
Syreene
25-04-2006, 18:51
My mistake...I tried searching through the UN first but I must have missed it. I based this proposal on a simplified version of the actual UNCAT that was formed to prevent torture.

Article 3 regards the practice of "Extraordinary Rendition" (sending prisoners to other countries that don't have the same anti-torture laws in place so that they can do the torturing for you). I don't believe it's right that a country should be allowed to do that, because it makes being a part of the resolution in the first place meaningless.
Gruenberg
25-04-2006, 18:54
I see. By UNCAT - you're referring to this (http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm)? I think it's a good basis to work on. UNCAT is very legalistic; your proposal is quite informal. Whilst I think you're right to tone down some of the legalese, perhaps you could make some of it more formal (for example, referring to "you" in the definition).

I think Clause 3 needs to be made clearer. Saying that someone has no right to do X does not necessarily bar them from doing X.
Syreene
25-04-2006, 19:00
I see your point, and yes, that's what I was basing it on. Due to the limitations on the word count in the proposal screen, I was trying to edit it down to make it fit yet still encompass most of the articles. I'll have to see if I can go through it again to make it a bit clearer while retaining the legal implications.
Ausserland
25-04-2006, 19:06
We'd suggest that the representative of Syreene not give up entirely on this idea. There may well be worthwhile material here, even given the existence of the "End Barbaric Punishments" resolution. As the distinguished representative of Gruenberg suggests, it's worth thinking about further.

One note, since we happened to notice it.... Your articles 6 through 8 probably run afoul of the resolution on "Diplomatic Immunity". They need a careful re-examination.

We also thank the representative for his explanation of "Extraordinary Rendition." That's a term we hadn't run across and is good to know.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
Syreene
25-04-2006, 19:32
You're welcome. Unfortunately it is a term that I have heard more than I wish to. At first I wanted to make a resolution regarding Extraordinary Rendition, but I wasn't sure how to word it. If the proposal I gave is stepping on the toes of those others before me, do you think if I re-worded it to ban that practice exclusively that it might be better suited?

Thanks,

Syreene
Gruenberg
25-04-2006, 19:36
I think making the proposal focus mainly, if not exclusively, on extraordinary rendition is an excellent idea, for two reasons. One, it is international in scope, as befits an international body like the UN. Two, it doesn't conflict with past legislation, whereas your current proposal might have problems in that regard.

It would also allow you to more fully define the practice.
Syreene
25-04-2006, 19:43
Okay then... I guess I will chalk this first proposal up to "experience," follow some of the advice here, and see if I can come up with better defined rules regarding a proposal banning the practice of Extraordinary Rendition.

Thanks for the input! ;)
Ecopoeia
25-04-2006, 19:58
I'm very interested to see what comes of these discussions. Thank you for beinging this up, Syreene.
Syreene
25-04-2006, 21:06
Just glad to be a contributing part to our growing government. ;) I'm working on my new proposal regarding extraordinary rendition, and should have it posted for discussion in the next day or two.
Dancing Bananland
26-04-2006, 03:45
The delegation from Dancing Bananaland abhor the practice of torture, and support this proposal, however we would like to point out a few improvements to increase the probability of it reaching quorum and passing.

1- Drop the second person (you). I'm not sure why, but this is quite annoying, and un-proffessional looking.

2- Make it match format standards. Although legally this proposal could pass, it is more likely to be endorsed and voted "yes" on if it looks like other proffessional and popular proposals.


Art 1: Torture is causing you pain on purpose to make you own up to a
misdeed, or to punish you, or to frighten you. But one may also torture you because of your race or ethnic group, or because of your religion or your ideas. Those who torture you obey orders coming from their superiors, or those superiors close theirs eyes, which is the same thing.


3- Redefind torture. Forget the reasons for torture, these are purposless for the resolution, focus simply on waht torture is. eg:

DEFINES torture as the willfull and sadistic infliction of substantial pain on an imprisoned, bound, or otherwise incapacitated indevidual. (or something along those lines).

4- Don't use to many articles to do the same thing. Articles 2, 4, and 10 all basically say the same thing, no torture. These could be summed up into one nice article:

MANDATES that all UN nations must prohibit any acts of torture by any private or public entity, including said nation's government. (or something even better).

5- More formal language. I don't have an effective specific example, just look at other resolutions and be more formal, less like a conversation or description, and more like a law.


Well, thats my bit of aid, I'm sure others have more complains/criticisms/advice. Good luck!
Zeldon 6229 Nodlez
26-04-2006, 09:54
Art. 6: If a foreigner guilty of acts of torture is in your country, whatever his
nationality, he must be arrested, detained, and he has the right to contact his
embassy or consulate.

Art. 7: He must be treated correctly and judged according to the law, as if he were a citizen of your country.

Art. 8: If his country claims him, he can be sent back if that country itself belongs to the Convention. Otherwise, one must determine if there is a rule authorizing his being sent back..


As I see this we must treat them according to OUR Natrional laws as we would any citizens of our NATION under those laws. Thus Art 7 violates our laws in that they have no right to contact anyone outside our nation but a local legal council and if one is not willing to serve them then they will be appointed one from our Legal Society.

I see no reason to call another nation and tell them anything about one of their citizens committing a crime in my nation against a citizen of my nation.. As they have nothing to input to the trail since they are in another nation.

The only reason to involve outside persons is if it's found they played a part in the crime and have fled my nation. Once we catch them here they are tried and pay here.. for all crimes done here.. according to our National Laws not their home nations laws.. If the home nation wants them when we are done with them then talk to us and we will deal with that.. only after we are done with them..

Also Art 3 clearly violates our laws as we send them to prison in a separate nation that is set up especialy to deal with criminals thus we can't send out criminals to prison as it might be seen they face torture there.. As we must treat them like any citizen in court then how can we send them to a prison if it might use a torture practice that is baned.

Are we to stop trying criminals in court and then sending them to serve time in prison.... and start executing them all?
Cluichstan
26-04-2006, 13:24
By my reading, psychological torture would still be permitted.

Excellent...
My Travelling Harem
26-04-2006, 16:26
Truly BRUTAL grammar and wording! Please, please fix it or I will have to vote against this resolution on principle!


Art 1: Torture is causing you pain on purpose to make you own up to a
misdeed, or to punish you, or to frighten you. But one may also torture you because of your race or ethnic group, or because of your religion or your ideas. Those who torture you obey orders coming from their superiors, or those superiors close theirs eyes, which is the same thing.

This definition of torture is somewhat limited. There are types of torture which do not involve physical pain per se. Psychological torture (ie: being forced to watch the rape of a loved one) comes to mind. Sleep deprivation and solitary confinement also do not cause pain, but are certainly torture under some circumstances.
Try something closer to the following:
Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of severe physical, emotional or psychological suffering for the purposes of coercion, terror, intimidation, information extraction, punishment or re-education.

--Rooty
Darsomir
27-04-2006, 01:24
Even something as simple as the sound of a dripping tap can be torture, due to its unpredictability.