1

Introduction
The premise that “sometimes torture is the only way to prevent serious human rights violations”
poses a perplexing dilemma for security and human rights. While international human rights
treaties, such as the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), prohibit torturing,
degrading or punishing people, proponents try to justify this claim by assertion that under
conditions like “a ticking bomb scenario,” torture is possibly seen as being the only way to
prevent massive damage. However, critics point out that torture violates core human rights and
could lead to unreliable intelligence, moral decline, and a climate of impunity.
This essay critically analyzes the idea that torture can be ethically justified under particular
circumstances to avoid serious violations of human rights. It specifically addresses the legal
cases brought forth by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and scholarly discourse
surrounding this issue. This essay attempts to provide a feasible insight into the difficulties of
balancing security needs with human rights norms by analyzing key decisions from the European
Court of Human Rights, such as M.S.S v Belgium and Greece case And Tarakhel -v-
Switzerland; alongside theoretical arguments.

Defining Torture and Human Rights Violations

Torture under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) involves an
intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain by a government agent, with protection
and support from that official. This definition is consistent with the United Nations Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Or Punishment (UNCAT),
which clearly prohibits torture under any circumstances, including during armed conflict or
situations of emergency. Article 3 of the ECHR, which is one vital pillar in the promotion and
protection of human rights across Europe, does stipulate that no form or torture may be allowed
under any circumstance. This ban is recognized as absolute.
The need of preventing extreme human rights breaches, such as torture, cannot be emphasized
enough. Human rights are inherent to all individuals and cannot be taken away, and they are
crucial for safeguarding human worth and advancing peace, fairness, and parity. Torture has a lot
of physical and psychological effects on individuals; it undermines the basic concepts in human
rights principles and the rule of law. It undermines confidence in governmental organizations,
prolongs patterns of aggression, and fosters a climate of exemption that contradicts the values of
fairness and responsibility.
Nevertheless, the ethical quandaries linked to employing torture as a method to avert grave
infringements on human rights are intricate and disputed. Advocates of employing torture in
exceptional circumstances contend that it might be imperative to obtain critical intelligence that
could avert impending and catastrophic peril, as exemplified by the hypothetical "ticking bomb
scenario." They argue that the obligation to safeguard innocent lives can, in certain situations,
warrant the utilization of torture as a final recourse after all other alternatives are exhausted.
 2

However, opponents strongly reject any rationale for torture, highlighting its intrinsic moral
abhorrence, its inefficacy in acquiring trustworthy information, and its susceptibility to misuse.
They contend that permitting any deviations from the complete ban of torture establishes a
perilous precedent that undermines the core principles of human dignity and the legal system.
Torture has a lot of physical and psychological effects on individuals; it undermines the basic
concepts in human rights principle as well as rule by law. Additionally, they point out that torture
violates the rights and dignity of every individual no matter what the circumstances are; other
methods to gather intelligence from suspects and interrogate them can be more morally sound as
well as effective.
Therefore, it is necessary to ensure the prevention of grave human rights violations including
torture as a way for enduring basic concepts like those about dignity and principles related to rule
of law. Though the ethical problems associated with using torture are intricate, there should be a
general ban on torture as one of key principles in international human rights law. This principle
reflects a worldwide agreement that torture can never be justified under any circumstances.
ECtHR Case Law on Torture and Inhuman Treatment
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has had a crucial impact on the interpretation
and enforcement of the ban on torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment
as outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ECtHR has played a
vital role in defining and applying these limitations through its case law, establishing significant
precedents for safeguarding human rights in Europe.
An exemplary case that demonstrates the position of the ECtHR on torture and inhumane
treatment is M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (application no. 30696/09). In this instance, the
individual applying, who is a citizen of Afghanistan, requested refuge in Belgium but was
subsequently relocated to Greece in accordance with the Dublin Regulation. This regulation
establishes the distribution of obligations among European Union member states for evaluating
asylum requests. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) determined that the reception
circumstances provided to asylum seekers in Greece were very inadequate, reaching a level that
may be considered as inhumane or degrading treatment. This ruling was in breach of Article 3 of
the ECHR. The ECtHR underscored the unequivocal character of the ban on torture and cruel or
degrading treatment. It affirmed that states are duty-bound to refrain from extraditing persons to
nations where there exists a genuine possibility of such mistreatment.
Another significant instance is Tarakhel v. Switzerland (application number. 29217/12), which
pertained to the expulsion of an Afghan family from Switzerland to Italy in accordance with the
Dublin Regulation. The ECtHR reaffirmed its stance that it is essential to have an assurance that
the nation receiving immigrants would offer suitable circumstances for their reception, especially
for vulnerable individuals like children. This is to ensure adherence to Article 3 of the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ECtHR underscored that countries who are parties to
the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are obligated to safeguard persons from
being subjected to treatment that goes against the principles of the Convention, even if the
danger originates from the activities of another country.
 3

These instances exemplify the ECtHR's stringent stance on the prohibition of torture and cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment as outlined in the ECHR. The European Court of
Human Rights (ECtHR) has constantly reiterated that these restrictions are absolute and non-
derogable, indicating that there are no situations in which states may validly or pardonably
justify such conduct. In addition, the ECtHR has highlighted the states' affirmative duties to
implement proactive steps in order to avoid persons from being subjected to such treatment, even
if the danger originates from activities carried out by other nations.
The case law of the ECtHR on torture and inhuman treatment clearly shows a strong dedication
to enforcing the complete prohibition of such treatment as stated in the ECHR. The ECtHR has
elucidated the duties of governments that are party to the Convention and has offered significant
direction on safeguarding persons against torture and cruel or humiliating treatment or
punishment.
Doctrinal Debate: Necessity of Torture
The discussion among academicians and legal professionals over the use of torture in exceptional
circumstances to avoid terrible human rights breaches has been intense. Advocates of this
perspective contend that under extraordinary conditions, such as the "ticking bomb scenario,"
where there is an imminent threat of a catastrophic event that could lead to severe violations of
human rights, the utilization of torture may be deemed acceptable as a final option to obtain vital
information and avert harm.
An argument supporting the need of torture is rooted in the utilitarian viewpoint, which considers
the possible harm produced by torturing an individual in comparison to the harm that may arise
from failing to get crucial information in time to avert an impending catastrophe. Advocates of
this perspective argue that in dire circumstances, the overall benefit of averting widespread
damage warrants the temporary infringement of an individual's rights through the use of torture.
Another contention is on the concept of a "lesser evil," positing that although torture is
fundamentally immoral, it may be deemed justifiable when the alternative, which involves
permitting significant injury, is even more unfavorable. This position recognizes the ethical
quandary presented by the utilization of torture but contends that in certain instances, the
repercussions of abstaining from torture might be far more catastrophic.
The notion of the "ticking bomb scenario" is frequently used in this discourse. This scenario
depicts a hypothetical circumstance in which a bomb is primed to explode in the near future,
with a significant risk of inflicting several deaths. Additionally, a detained individual is
suspected of possessing crucial knowledge that might avert the impending catastrophe.
Advocates for the indispensability of torture contend that in highly critical and time-critical
circumstances, conventional ethical and legal limitations may have to be disregarded in order to
preserve lives.
Nevertheless, opponents of the indispensability of torture put out persuasive arguments against
its utilization. An influential argument revolves upon the fundamental moral and ethical
opposition to torture, irrespective of the situation. Critics contend that torture is a breach of
 4

human dignity and rights, and that permitting its utilization in any scenario undermines the core
tenets of human rights and the legal system.
Furthermore, some raise doubts regarding the reliability of torture as a method for acquiring
dependable intelligence. They contend that persons who are exposed to torture may offer
inaccurate or deceptive information just to terminate their agony, rendering torture an
untrustworthy and morally objectionable means of collecting intelligence.
Critics argue that torture is strictly forbidden by international law, such as the ECHR, which
specifically outlaws any form of torture or inhumane and humiliating treatment or punishment,
without exception. They contend that granting exemptions to this rule weakens the universality
and unequivocal character of the prohibition against torture.
Although there is debate around the need for torture in severe situations, the overall view based
on international law and human rights values is that torture is never acceptable. The detrimental
consequences and moral reservations linked to torture surpass the justifications for its utilization,
so it is imperative to explore alternate approaches to interrogation and information collection that
uphold human rights.
The Principle of Mutual Trust and Human Rights
The idea of mutual trust is a basic notion that forms the basis of the EU's legislative structure,
ensuring cooperation and reliance among member states. The underlying assumption is that
every member state of the European Union has shared values and upholds the principles of the
rule of law and basic rights, as stated in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). This
concept entails that member states have confidence in one another to respect these common
principles and legal norms, encompassing those pertaining to the safeguarding of human rights.
Trust is crucial within the EU's sphere of freedom, security, and justice, encompassing
collaboration in criminal affairs and the reciprocal acceptance of legal rulings. The notion is
important for the efficient operation of measures such as the European Arrest Warrant and the
Dublin Regulation, which necessitate member states to have confidence in each other's legal
systems and adherence to human rights norms.
Nevertheless, the idea of mutual confidence must be counterbalanced by the need of
safeguarding fundamental rights, such as the prohibition of torture and inhumane treatment.
Although mutual trust is crucial for promoting collaboration and ensuring the efficient operation
of EU procedures, it cannot be unconditional and must always prioritize the need to uphold
human rights.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is crucial in upholding human rights inside the
EU framework, particularly in situations where the concept of mutual trust overlaps with the
protection of human rights. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has continuously
maintained that member states are bound by their commitments under the European Convention
on Human Rights (ECHR), namely Article 3, which forbids torture and any form of cruel or
degrading treatment or punishment. According to the ECtHR, these requirements take
precedence over considerations of mutual confidence.
 5

The ECtHR has examined instances, such as M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece and Tarakhel v.
Switzerland, where the conflict between the concept of mutual confidence and the imperative to
safeguard persons from the peril of torture or inhumane treatment arose. The European Court of
Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in the case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece that Belgium
breached Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by sending an asylum
seeker to Greece. This decision was based on the fact that Greece has significant flaws in its
asylum system, which might potentially subject the individual to treatment that is both inhumane
and humiliating.
In the case of Tarakhel v. Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
determined that Switzerland had breached Article 3 of the European Convention on Human
Rights. This violation occurred when Switzerland transferred a family seeking asylum to Italy
under the Dublin Regulation. The ECtHR found that there were significant reasons to believe
that the family would face a genuine risk of being subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment
in Italy due to the conditions they would encounter upon arrival.
These instances exemplify the role of the ECtHR in safeguarding against abuses of basic rights,
especially in situations where there are tangible threats of torture or inhuman treatment, in order
to prevent the concept of mutual trust from overriding these rights. The jurisprudence of the
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) confirms that although mutual trust is crucial for
European Union (EU) collaboration, it cannot supersede the complete prohibition of torture and
inhumane treatment as stated in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Conclusion
This critical analysis has discussed the intricate and controversial matter of whether torture may
be justified as a means to avoid grave infringements on human rights. By examining the case law
of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the ongoing scholarly discussion, some
crucial aspects have been identified.
Torture is generally denounced according to international law, including the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 3, which explicitly forbids torture and any kind of
inhumane or humiliating treatment or punishment. The law of the European Court of Human
Rights (ECtHR), as demonstrated in instances such as M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece and
Tarakhel v. Switzerland, emphasizes the complete and unconditional character of this ban. It also
highlights the need of member states to enforce it, especially when confronted with intricate
legal and political difficulties.
Furthermore, although the concept of mutual trust is crucial for the operation of the EU's
legislative framework, particularly in regards to cooperation on criminal issues and asylum
policy, it must not override the basic rights that are safeguarded by the European Convention on
Human Rights (ECHR). The ECtHR has continuously emphasized that the safeguarding of
human rights, including the absolute prohibition of torture, must always be of utmost importance,
regardless of the situation.
 6

Given these factors, it is clear that torture can never be morally justified, even under exceptional
circumstances like the "ticking bomb scenario." The ethical and legal ramifications of torture are
significant, and the possibility of misuse and degradation of human worth greatly surpasses any
apparent advantages in averting damage.
Hence, although the need to avoid grave human rights abuses is undeniably crucial, it must be
done in accordance with international legal principles and the upholding of human rights. The
intricacies of this delicate equilibrium necessitate meticulous deliberation, yet ultimately, the
unequivocal prohibition of torture must remain irrevocable in any civilized society dedicated to
preserving human dignity and the principles of justice.