TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN

AND DEGRADING TREATMENT OR

PUNISHMENT

MANFRED
NOWAK
Introduction
● International humanitarian law has drawn its major inspiration from respect for
the dignity and integrity of human being

-Developed to reduce human suffering during armed conflicts through convincing

armed combatants to act as humanely as possible.

● Lieber Code of 1863 - military necessity does not admit cruelty including
torture
Introduction
● The ICRC was the one who developed
minimum standards of humane treatment
under the context of international treaties.
● Jean Pictet - obligation to grant protected
persons of their humane treatment
● IHRL - established as a reaction to violent
acts during World War II and Nazi
Holocaust
● State sovereignty - reason why
international human rights were used in
time of war
Introduction
● Preamble of both the 1945 UN Charter and the 1948 UDHR placed
importance on the need for human rights
● Human rights - based on desire to protect human dignity
● Slavery and torture - constitute a direct attack on the core of human dignity
● Article 5 of African Charter:

“Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a
human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation
and degradation of man particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel,
inhuman of degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited. “
Introduction
● Prohibition of slavery and torture ranks among very few rights, which are
absolute and derogable.

-It never can be justified or balanced against other human rights or state interests

● Torture and slavery divided into three:

1. Torture
2. Cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment
3. Degrading treatment or punishment
Cruel Inhuman
torture
Obligations of the states under HRL
Conclusions
Analyzing prohibitions of torture under IHL and IHRL
shows major similarities and minor differences

•BOTH IHRL and IHL

–3 different types of ill-treatment
1.Degrading treatment
2.Cruel or inhuman treatment
3.Powerlessness of the victim
Analyzing prohibitions of torture under IHL and IHRL
shows major similarities and minor differences

•In the context of TORTURE and ILL-

TREATMENT
–State officials, rebel groups, and other non state
actors are equally liable to prosecution before the
International Criminal Court.
Conclusion
•There are NO contradictions between IHL
and IHRL in relation to the prohibition of
torture and other forms of ill-treatment.
•However, IHL provides better protection than
IHRL.
Questions:
1. What roles do IHL and IHRL play to limit the use of corporal punishments?

2. Given that ihrl and ihl have a lot of similarities and the differences can easily be
remedied by simple interpretation, does this fact mean that one of them is
necessarily irrelevant?

3. How effective are these policies if major actors are spared from
responsibilities (US-Abu Ghrain incident)? Does this have an impact towards
non-state actors observance to such policies? Towards small independent
countries’ observance to such policies?