SuozziLand
23-02-2008, 08:51
Whereas, The United Nations recognizes the good intentions of the original proposal to “outlaw and prevent torturing of witnesses to receive information”
Whereas, the resolution limits the scope of the definition of the word torture and defines it as simply, “breaking bones, blinding and bruising people”.
Whereas, the cruel and unusual punishment ban located within this resolution, should be an entirely separate resolution because it embraces an entirely different subject.
Whereas, the resolution does not provide a definition for how much a “substantial fine” would be for a member-nation which violates this ban.
Therefore be it resolved, that United Nations Resolution #41 is repealed.
Therefore be it further resolved, that the issues of cruel and unusual punishment and torture need to be examined further be the United Nations.
Whereas, the resolution limits the scope of the definition of the word torture and defines it as simply, “breaking bones, blinding and bruising people”.
Whereas, the cruel and unusual punishment ban located within this resolution, should be an entirely separate resolution because it embraces an entirely different subject.
Whereas, the resolution does not provide a definition for how much a “substantial fine” would be for a member-nation which violates this ban.
Therefore be it resolved, that United Nations Resolution #41 is repealed.
Therefore be it further resolved, that the issues of cruel and unusual punishment and torture need to be examined further be the United Nations.