Protection against Torture as Human Right

Look into the definition of Torture

The term torture indicates the administration of suffering and pain which is given to obtain
information from a person directly from him or indirectly from any other person. This concept
literally deals with attainment of information. However, the other concept of torture is fulfilling
the purpose of one person against the interest of other person by providing pain. 1 But generally,
the torture is applied in detention to fulfil the purpose of obtaining information.

Reasoning for consideration of Torture as Human Right

The torture is applied to get valuable information from a detained person but there are also other
professional methods which can be utilized to fulfil the attainment of desired knowledge. Hence,
the application of torture is denied and protection against torture is adopted as a human right.
The United Nations committee on human rights has taken torture a violation of human rights on
three grounds of destructive effects on the victim, effects on other persons and community and
excessiveness and uncontrollability in administration of torture. 2 The torture can kill a person
and undignifies the image of an individual which is against morality therefore, such assertion is
taken against torture.

Defence of Protection against Torture as Human Right

The torture does not ensure the validity of any obtained confession. The victim can give false
information only to get rid of beating and pain immediately. Here the application of torture
cannot save any life based on acquired information. The application of torture is inefficient
punishment of guilty as adopting clear interrogation method can give correct information. 3 The
torture is also a threat to right to life of an individual as extreme suffering can endanger a human

1
Paskins, B. (1976). What’s Wrong with Torture? British Journal of International Studies, 2(2), 138–148.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20096767

2
Twiss, S. B. (2007). Torture, Justification, and Human Rights: Toward an Absolute Proscription. Human Rights
Quarterly, 29(2), 346–367. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20072802
3
Paskins, B. (1976). What’s Wrong with Torture? British Journal of International Studies, 2(2), 138–148.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20096767
life. The suffering given to an individual is illegal as the person is not convicted guilty in law to
give any punishment but neither law imposes any such extreme suffering except that are made
legal to meet the concept of administration of justice.

Denial of Protection against Torture as Human Right

The harm caused by torture is justified by extracting lifesaving information from an individual
which can avoid loss of many lives. A terrorist having confidential information who refuses to
give any statement could cause calamity to the life of innocent people then the torture can be the
only option to the interrogator to extract information. The interrogation team can surely consider
a terrorist guilty which has sufficient knowledge to believe that such terrorist is a member of a
harmful organization. On such basis, the terrorist can never be considered an innocent and the
administration of torture is validated. The administration of torture in such conditions must be
proportionate to the expected good.4 The reasoning is that such bad of torture is done only for the
good of people.

International Convention on Torture

The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment
Punishment is a global remedy against the administration of torture in International law. The
convention is preventing acts of torture and obliging all the member states to take administrative,
judicial and legislatives approaches. The CAT mentions a concept of non-refoulment,
criminalizing torture in domestic law of states, establishing the universal jurisdiction over
administration of torture, training of interrogation officers to ensure rejection in application of
torture and also including the remedies for victims of torture. This convention rejects torture as
an inhumane act based on the reasonings of cruelty and immorality.

4
Juratowitch, B. (2008). Torture Is Always Wrong. Public Affairs Quarterly, 22(2), 81–90.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40441483
Reservations of State regarding Torture
Torture is barbaric but a state should not be barbaric. The CAT has been recognized by
international community of 165 state parties and six signatories. But many state parties have
made reservations regarding CAT as Bahrain, China, Ecuador, Eritrea, France, Germany, Israel,
Kuwait, New Zealand, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE and USA. These
countries adopted reservation with international ratification and on reasoning of CAT as
universal rules to be applied in a particular country with domestic rules of the state. But these
reservations do not undermine the efficiency of the convention but it is due to compliance with
local laws dealing with the needs of locals.