The founding fathers and mothers of the Namibian nation made international and human rights law binding upon Namibia, a part of the laws of the country.\ue00188 This means that all the human rights instruments rati\ue000ed by Namibia are directly applicable in the Namibian legal system. No enacting law is necessary to make the UN human rights covenants and treaties applicable.
Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (rati\ue000ed on behalf of Namibia by the UN Committee for Namibia on 11 November 1982)
The Torture Convention is a case in point. In terms of the Convention, all members are expected to criminalise torture. Torture has never been criminalised in Namibia. Instead, the prosecutorial authority has always opted to prosecute for assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm \u2013 a common law crime. At \ue000rst sight, this seems to be a perfect solution since assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm is a serious offence, and the presiding magistrate or judge can impose a reasonably long prison sentence if the assault caused serious
However, the de\ue000nitions of the two crimes are totally different. Whiletorture often constitutes a physical attack, it is not always the case. The European Union guidelines for police of\ue000cers include actions that do not even require that the body of the victim be touched. Long periods of interrogation while a suspect is not allowed to sit down; is deprived of sleep, food or water; playing loud music and shining bright lights while a victim is sleeping \u2013 all these constitute
hope for once s/he is brought before court after an interrogation that constituted psychological torture is that any confession of admission made will be declared unconstitutional and inadmissible as evidence. Under Namibian law, the innocent victim of psychological torture will not be able to lay a charge against his/her torturer and the torturer will never give account for his/her actions in a criminal
Even whent o rt u re constitutes a violent attack that causes grievous bodily harm, there are still good reasons why the requirements of the Torture Convention will not be ful\ue000lled by the prosecution ofassault. Firstly, one of the reasons for speci\ue000c anti-torture legislation is to emphasise the serious nature of the crime and to allow the presiding of\ue000cer to impose a sentence that will re\ue001ect it.To r t u re
obtain information by in\ue001icting pain or discomfort. It is the evil of the torturer\u2019s intent and the psychological effects on the victim that demand special treatment of the crime.
know the boundaries of state power, the state\u2019s subjects also need to be well informed of their rights if those rights are to be protected. If the domestic courts treat torture simply as a serious form of assault, the public will never be educated to understand the severe effects of torture on the lives of those subjected to it.
The fact that the so-called War on Terror has led many old democracies to become soft on torture\ue00189 makes it even more important for all members of the Torture Convention to comply with the treaty\u2019s requirements and make torture a speci\ue000c crime. If not, the examples of the powerful nations in their \u2018war on terror\u2019 will become the example the rest of the world follows.\ue00190
Since the treaties rati\ue000ed by Namibia form part of Namibian law, is it not possible for the law enforcement agencies to apply the treaties and prosecute violators of the Torture Convention? However, since the treaty as an international instrument does not include a penalty clause, it cannot form the object of a criminal offence. The Committee against Torture has acknowledged that, despite the broad framing of Articles 4, 5, 10 and 11, the Torture Convention is not entirely self-executing; and even if a constitution allows for the direct effect of international law \u2013 as Namibia\u2019s does \u2013 a domestic legal framework is necessary for the implementation of the important aspects.\ue0019\ue000
in\ue001iction of pain to obtain information does not constitutet o r t u re; or the recent statement of US Attorney General A Gonzalez thatt o r t u re only occurs when the in\ue001iction of pain leads to organ failure. See Center for Constitutional Rights. 2006. Report on torture and cruel,
during the military and police action following the failed secession attack on strategic places in Katimo Mulilo in northern Namibia. See Menges, W. 2003. \u201cShalli on warpath in treason case\u201d. The Namibian, \ue0019 October \ue001003.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?