header-logo header-logo

13 December 2007 / Robert Spicer
Issue: 7301 / Categories: Features , Human rights
printer mail-detail

No torture; no debate

Torture cannot be justified under any circumstances in civilised society, argues Robert Spicer

Philip Rumney and Martin O’Boyle (NLJ, 9 November 2007, pp 1566–67) say the use of torture as an interrogation tool has been discussed with increasing frequency since 11 September 2001.

It is difficult to find any references in the legal press—including NLJ—to proposals for the legalisation of torture. The prospect of academic lawyers debating the proposed legalisation of torture is appalling. There is not, and should not be, any such debate. This is not a controversial topic. Torture is illegal and non-negotiable. Academic attempts to “debate” torture only lend apparent respectability to a matter which is beyond discussion in civilised countries.

THE LAW ON TORTURE

The law is clear. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) states that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This provides absolute protection. In no circumstances can such treatment be rendered lawful. The state cannot argue such treatment has local acceptability, that

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll