Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-27T11:24:41.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Emerging International Regime Against Torture*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

J. Donnelly
Get access

Extract

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was opened to all States for signature and ratification by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984. Part I of the Convention defines and prohibits torture, establishes a system of universal jurisdiction against it, and specifies the responsibilities of States under the Convention for preventing and prosecuting torture in their territories. Part II establishes an international implementation system based on a Committee against Torture with the authority to review mandatory periodic reports by States parties on their implementation of the Convention. Optional provisions also permit parties to authorize the Committee to receive and investigate communications (complaints) from States or from individuals alleging violations of the Convention, as well as any reliable information it should receive indicating the systematic practice of torture in the territory of any State party.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , May 1986 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The best reviews are Forsythe, D., ‘The United Nations and Human Rights’, 100 Pol. Sci. Q (1985) p. 249Google Scholar; Donnelly, J., ‘International Human Rights: A Regimes Analysis’, 40 International Organization, forthcoming (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Schwelb, E. and Alston, P., ‘The Principal Institutions and Other Bodies Founded Under the Charter’ in The International Dimensions of Human Rights, Vasak, K. and Alston, P., eds., (1982)Google Scholar. For good recent legal reviews see Guide to International Human Rights Practice, Hannum, H. ed., (1984)Google Scholar and Human Rights in International Law, Meron, T. ed., (1984)Google Scholar.

2. General Assembly Resolution 3452 (XXX), of 9 December 1975.

3. See, e.g., E/CN.4/1984/SR.33 paras. 24–25 and E/1978/34, p. 39.

4. E/CN.4/1285, 23 January 1978.

5. Working Group on a Draft Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Reports of the Working Group were issued as E/1978/34, E/1979/36, E/CN.4/1367, E/1981/25, E/CN.4/1982/30/Add. 1, E/CN.4/1983/63 and E/CN.4/1984/72.

6. See E/1979/36, pp. 38–39, 44 and E/1981/25, p. 52. On earlier efforts at defining torture see Klayman, L.E., ‘The Definition of Torture in International Law’, 51 Temple Law Q (1978) p. 449Google Scholar.

7. E/CN.4/1984/SR.32 para. 75.

8. See, e.g., E/CN.4/1367 para. 51.

9. On human rights and general principles see Hevener, N.K. and Mosher, S.A., ‘General Principles of Law and the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’, 27 ICLQ (1978) p. 596Google Scholar.

10. Including nonrefoulement was explicitly intended to give this provision the widest possible application. See E/1979/36, p. 41.

11. General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI), Annex.

12. United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 660, p. 195Google Scholar.

13. A/40/40, Annex I.

14. See, Haas, E.B., Human Rights and International Action (1970)Google Scholar; N. Valticos, ‘The International Labor Organization’, in The International Dimensions of Human Rights, op. cit., n. 1; Wolf, ‘Human Rights and the International Labor Organization’, in Human Rights in International Law, op. cit., n. 1 and Haas, E.B., Beyond the Nation State (1964)Google Scholar.

15. See, e.g., Jhabvala, F., ‘The Practice of the Covenant's Human Rights Committee, 1976–1982: Review of State Practice’, 6 Human Rights Q (1984) p. 81Google Scholar; Fischer, D. D., ‘Reporting Under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: The First Five Years of the Human Rights Committee’, 76 AJIL (1982), p. 142Google Scholar; Nowak, M., ‘The Effectiveness of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Stocktaking after the First Eleven Sessions’, 1 Human Rights L J (1980) p. 136Google Scholar and Robertson, A. H., ‘The Implementation System: International Measures’, in The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Henkin, L. ed., (1981)Google Scholar. The most recent Committee report is A/40/40.

16. See Fischer, D.D., ‘International Reporting Procedures’, in Guide to International Human Rights Practice, op. cit. n. 1 at pp. 173–176Google Scholar and Das, K., ‘United Nations Institutions and Procedures Founded on Conventions on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’, in The International Dimensions of Human Rights, op. cit. n. 1, at pp. 333–334Google Scholar. The secondary literature on the Working Group is very sparse; its meeting records are available as E/year/WG.l/SR. (meeting number).

17. See Das, , loc. cit. n. 16 at pp. 307–330Google Scholar. The Committee's most recent report is A/-+0/18.

18. See Galey, M. E., ‘International Enforcement of Women's Rights’, 6 Human Rights Q (1984) p. 463Google Scholar. The Committee's most recent report is A/40/45.

19. A/39/40, Annex IV; A/40/18, chap. III A.

20. A/39/40 para. 550.

21. Stocktaking on the European Convention on Human Rights, The First Thirty Years: 1954 until 1984 (1984) at p. 308.

22. Fischer, , loc. cit. n. 15 at pp. 145–147Google Scholar.

23. A/C.3/39/SR.56 and SR.60 and A/39/708, 5 December 1984.

24. See Jhabvala, , loc. cit. n. 15 at pp. 87, 92–94Google Scholar and Fischer, , loc. cit. n. 15 at p. 149Google Scholar.

25. See, e.g., E/CN.4/1984/72 para. 49.

26. See supra n. 23.

27. For a superb, thorough analysis and review, see Tolley, H., ‘The Concealed Crack in The Citadel: The United Nations Commission on Human Rights' Response to Confidential Communications’, 6 Human Rights Q (1984) p. 420Google Scholar. See also D.L. Shelton, ‘Individual Complaint Machinery under the United Nations 1503 Procedure and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’, in Guide to International Human Rights Practice, op. cit. n. 1.

28. See Galey, , loc. cit. n. 18 and E/1984/15, para. 67–76Google Scholar.

29. E/CN.4/1984/SR.32 para. 103.

30. A/C.3/39/SR.56 para. 33.

31. A/C.3/39/SR.60 para. 54–70.

32. See Fegley, R., ‘The UN Human Rights Commission: The Equatorial Guinea Case’, 3 Human Rights Q (1981) p. 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also E/CN.4/1371, 12 February 1980.

33. See E/1980/12, decision 10 (XXXVI); E/1984/14, decision 1984/109; and E/1985/22, decision 1985/107.

34. E/CN.4/1984/SR.34 para. 111.

35. Tolley, loc. cit., n. 27, Table 2.

36. A/39/40 para. 565.

37. For example, the Human Rights Committee has taken decisions on individual communications from Canada, Colombia, Finland, Italy, Madagascar, Mauritius, Surinam, Sweden, Uruguay and Zaire, hardly a representative sample of violators of civil and political rights.

38. A/38/40, Annex XXXI, para. 14, Annex XXXII, para. 4, and Annex XXXIII; A/39/40 para. 623–624; A/40/40 para. 703–705.

39. Krasner, S., ‘Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables’, in International Regimes, Krasner, S. ed., (1983) p. 1Google Scholar. For an application of the concept to international human rights see Donnelly, , loc. cit. n. 1Google Scholar.

40. General Assembly Resolution 217A (III), 10 December 1948.

41. See supra n. 21.

42. See Buergenthal, T. and Norris, R. E., Human Rights: The Inter-American System (1982–1984)Google Scholar; and T. Buergenthal, ‘The Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights’, in Human Rights in International Law, op. cit. n. 1.

43. For reports on its progress, see A/39/662 and E/CN.4/1985/55.