Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T22:59:08.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regime of torture: Guantánamo Bay’s ongoing detention and prosecutions of the CIA’s Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation prisoners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2024

Ruth Blakeley Open the ORCID record for Ruth Blakeley [Opens in a new window]  and
Megan Price
Ruth Blakeley*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Megan Price
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
*
Corresponding author: Ruth Blakeley; Email: r.blakeley@sheffield.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Under the Convention against Torture, if states know of torture having taken place, they have obligations to provide redress and rehabilitation for victims and pursue prosecution of those responsible. Despite this, the United States continues to detain prisoners who were subjected to years of CIA torture in Guantánamo Bay. The United States is pursuing the death penalty through the Military Commissions (MC) system which falls far short of any international standards for fair trial. Ongoing systematic physical and psychological abuse prolongs torture’s effects. We argue that the ongoing arbitrary detention, abuse, denial of healthcare, and the MCs constitute a regime of torture that persists today, with the acquiescence of successive US administrations, and with the collusion of multiple agencies of the US state. This regime is deliberately intended to keep CIA torture victims incommunicado as long as possible to prevent evidence of the worst excesses of CIA torture from ever coming to light. This regime has profound implications for human rights accountability and the rule of law. Our argument offers an opportunity to revisit the prevailing narrative in International Relations literature, which tends to view the CIA torture programme as an aberration, and its closure an indicator of the restoration of the anti-torture norm.

Video Abstract

Keywords

CIAGuantánamo Bayhuman rightsinternational lawtorture
Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , First View , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The British International Studies Association.

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 Ruth Blakeley and Sam Raphael, ‘British torture in the “war on terror”’, European Journal of International Relations, 23:2 (2016), pp. 243–66 (p. 246).

2 SSCI, Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program, declassified Executive Summary, US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 3 December 2014, available at: {https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CRPT-113srpt288.pdf}.

3 SSCI, Committee Study, pp. 3–4.

4 Julian Borger, ‘CIA black site detainee served as training prop to teach interrogators torture techniques’, The Guardian (14 March 2022), available at: {https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/mar/14/cia-black-site-detainee-training-prop-torture-techniques}.

5 ICRC, ‘ICRC report on the treatment of fourteen “high value detainees” in CIA custody’ (14 February 2007), p. 17, available at: {http://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/pdf/PDF%20101%20[ICRC,%20Feb%202007.%20Report%20on%20Treatment%20of%2014%20HVD%20in%20CIA%20Custody].pdf}.

6 Alka Pradhan, Expert Panel: The Guantanamo Military Commissions: Fair Trial Rights, Justice and Human Rights. Bar Human Rights Council of England and Wales, 1 June 2023.

7 Barack Obama, ‘Transcript of interview: Barack Obama and George Stephanopoulos’, This Week, 11 January 2009, available at: {https://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Economy/story?id=6618199&page=1}.

8 Available at: {https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/issues/guantanamo}.

9 Sam Raphael, Crofton Black, and Ruth Blakeley, CIA Torture Unredacted (London: The Rendition Project and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 2019), p. 58, available at: {https://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/documents/RDI/190710-TRP-TBIJ-CIA-Torture-Unredacted-Full.pdf}.

10 Raphael et al., CIA Torture Unredacted, p. 135.

11 Andrea Birdsall, ‘But we don’t call it “torture”! Norm contestation during the US “War on Terror”’, International Politics, 53:2 (2016), pp. 176–97; Jutta Brunnée and Stephen J. Toope, Legitimacy and Legality in International Law: An Interactional Account (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 220–70; Ian Hurd, How to Do Things with International Law (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017), pp. 103–28; Ryder McKeown, ‘Norm regress: US revisionism and the slow death of the torture norm’, International Relations, 23:1 (2009), pp. 5–25; Sarah V. Percy and Wayne Sandholtz, ‘Why norms rarely die’, European Journal of International Relations, 28:4 (2022), pp. 934–54; Simon Frankel Pratt, Normative Transformation and the War on Terrorism: The Evolution of Targeted Killing, Torture, and Private Military Contracting (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022), pp. 86–119; Kathryn Sikkink, ‘The United States and torture: Does the spiral model work?’, in Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink (eds), The Persistent Power of Human Rights: From Commitment to Compliance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 145–63; Wayne Sandholtz, ‘Closing off the torture option’, Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 18:3 (2009), pp. 589–602.

12 Sikkink, ‘The US and torture’, p. 151.

13 McKeown, ‘Norm regress’, pp. 15–19.

14 Brunnée and Toope, ‘Torture’, p. 249; McKeown, ‘Norm regress’, p. 6; Percy and Sandholtz, ‘Why norms rarely die’, p. 936; Sikkink, ‘The US and torture’, p. 148.

15 Sikkink, ‘The US and torture’, p. 148.

16 Writing in 2009, McKeown argued that the norm was in crisis: ‘Norm regress’, p. 5. Later work challenged McKeown’s conclusion, citing the existence of widespread push-back: Birdsall, ‘But we don’t call it “torture”!’, pp. 184–92; Sikkink, ‘The US and torture’, pp. 152–61; Percy and Sandholtz, ‘Why norms rarely die’, pp. 937–8.

17 Sandholtz, ‘Closing off the torture option’, p. 589.

18 Birdsall, ‘But we don’t call it “torture”!’, p.192; Hurd, International Law, p. 123; Percy and Sandholtz, ‘Why norms rarely die’, p. 938; Sikkink, ‘The US and torture’, p. 163.

19 Percy and Sandholtz, ‘Why norms rarely die’, pp. 599–600.

20 Lisa Hajjar, The War in Court: Inside the Long Fight against Torture (Oakland: University of California Press, 2022).

21 Hajjar, The War in Court, p. 312.

22 Neil J. Mitchell, Democracy’s Blameless Leaders: From Dresden to Abu Ghraib, How Leaders Evade Accountability for Abuse and Atrocity (New York: New York University Press, 2012), pp. 22–3.

23 Mitchell, Democracy’s Blameless Leaders, pp. 27–30.

24 Mitchell, Democracy’s Blameless Leaders, p. 27.

25 Mitchell, Democracy’s Blameless Leaders, p. 28.

26 Michael J. Glennon, ‘How international rules die’, Georgetown Law Journal, 93:3 (2005), pp. 939–91.

27 Diana Panke and Ulrich Petersohn, ‘Why international norms disappear sometimes’, European Journal of International Relations, 19:4 (2012), pp. 719–42.

28 Nicole Deitelhoff and Lisbeth Zimmermann, ‘Norms under challenge: Unpacking the dynamics of norm robustness’, Journal of Global Security Studies, 4:1 (2019), pp. 2–17 (p. 7); Percy and Sandholtz, ‘Why norms rarely die’, p. 15. Wayne Sandholtz, Prohibiting Plunder: How Norms Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 19.

29 Percy and Sandholtz, ‘Why norms rarely die’, p. 948–9.

30 Emanuel Adler and Vincent Pouliot, ‘International practices’, International Theory, 3:1 (2011), pp. 1–36; Pratt, Normative Transformation, p. 116; Antje Wiener, Contestation and Constitution of Norms in Global International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), p. 27.

31 Pratt, Normative Transformation, p. 25.

32 Pratt, Normative Transformation, p. 116.

33 UN, ‘Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading or Punishment’(1985), available at: {https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-against-torture-and-other-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading}.

34 James Connell, Alka Pradhan, and Margaux Lander, ‘Obstacles to torture rehabilitation at Guantánamo Bay’, Torture, 27:2 (2017), pp. 62–78 (p. 66).

35 UN Committee against Torture (UNCAT), ‘General comment no. 3, 2012: Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: implementation of article 14 by states parties’ (13 December 2012), available at: {https://www.refworld.org/docid/5437cc274.html}.

36 UNCAT, ‘General comment no. 3, 2012’.

37 Nora Sveaass, ‘Gross human rights violations and reparation under international law: Approaching rehabilitation as a form of reparation’, European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 4:1 (2013), pp. 1–11 (p. 5).

38 Connell et al., ‘Obstacles to torture rehabilitation’, p. 63.

39 UNOHCHR, Istanbul Protocol. Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2004), available at: {https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/training8rev1en.pdf}.

40 See {https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/guantanamo-bay-detainees.html} accessed 19 April 2024 and {https://www.closeguantanamo.org/Prisoners} accessed 19 April 2024.

41 SSCI, Committee Study.

42 Raphael et al., CIA Torture Unredacted.

43 Ellen Knickmeyer, ‘Plea agreement may shorten further time at Guantanamo for 2 in connection with Bali bombings’, Associated Press (27 January 2024), available at: {https://apnews.com/article/guantanamo-bombings-bali-sentencing-trial-88d54ffb112346f4ee786b977aaeb382}.

44 Email correspondence with Meghan Skelton, defence attorney to Nashwan al-Tamir, 3 September 2023.

45 Available at: {https://www.closeguantanamo.org/Prisoners}.

46 Cathy Scott-Clark and Adrian Levy, The Forever Prisoner: The Full and Searing Account of the CIA’s Most Controversial Covert Program (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2022), pp. 358–9.

47 UN, ‘Technical Visit to the United States and Guantánamo Detention Facility’, UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism’ (14 June 2023), available at: {https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/terrorism/sr/2023-06-26-SR-terrorism-technical-visit-US-guantanamo-detention-facility.pdf}.

48 SSCI, Committee Study, pp. 46. Office of Medical Services (OMS), Summary and Reflections of Chief of Medical Services on OMS Participation in the RDI Program (14 August 2018).

49 OMS, Participation in RDI, p. 7.

50 OMS, Participation in RDI, pp. 8–9.

51 SSCI, Committee Study, pp. 30–2.

52 Ed Pilkington, ‘“The forever prisoner”: Abu Zubaydah’s drawings expose the US’ depraved torture policy’, The Guardian (11 May 2023), available at: {https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/11/abu-zubaydah-drawings-guantanamo-bay-us-torture-policy}; Mark Denbeaux, Jess Ghannam, and Abu Zubaydah, ‘American torturers: FBI and CIA abuses at dark sites and Guantanamo’, Seton Hall Law School Legal Studies Research (9 May 2023), available at: {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4443310}.

53 CIA Office of the Inspector General (OIG), ‘Special Review: Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities (September 2001–October 2003)’ (7 May 2004).

54 SSCI, Committee Study, p. 42.

55 Raphael et al., CIA Torture Unredacted, p. 19; SSCI, Committee Study, p. 160.

56 SSCI, Committee Study, p. 42.

57 Scott-Clark and Levy, ‘The forever prisoner’, p. 209.

58 Scott-Clark and Levy, ‘The forever prisoner’, p. 304.

59 UN, Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, UN (7 October 2013), p. 16, available at: {https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/SPECIAL_RAPPORTEUR_EN.pdf}.

60 UNOHCHR, ‘Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its eightieth session, 20–24 November 2017’ (24 January 2018), p. 9, available at: {https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G18/017/85/PDF/G1801785.pdf?OpenElement}.

61 UN, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (16 December 1976), available at: {http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx }.

62 UNOHCHR, ‘Opinions adopted’, p. 9.

63 UNOHCHR, ‘Opinions adopted’, p. 10.

64 UNOHCHR, ‘Opinions adopted’, p. 1.

65 UNOHCHR, ‘Opinions adopted’, p. 10.

66 Connell et al., ‘Obstacles to torture rehabilitation’, p. 67.

67 Connell et al., ‘Obstacles to torture rehabilitation’, p. 68.

68 UNOHCHR, ‘Opinions adopted’, pp. 11–12.

69 UNOHCHR, ‘Opinions adopted’, p. 13.

70 Sweta Sharma, ‘US closes secretive “Camp 7” at Guantánamo Bay’, The Independent (5 April 2021), available at: {https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/guantanamo-bay-closed-detention-camp-b1826720.html}.

71 Connell et al., ‘Obstacles to torture rehabilitation’, pp. 68–9.

72 UNOHCHR, ‘Information received concerning Mr. Nashwan al-Tamir’ (11 January 2023), available at: {https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=27797}.

73 UNOHCHR, ‘Information received’, p. 2.

74 UNOHCHR, ‘Information received’, p. 2.

75 UNOHCHR, ‘Information received’, p. 9.

76 UNOHCHR, ‘Information received’, p. 3.

77 UNOHCHR, ‘Information received’, p. 9.

78 SSCI, Committee Study, pp. 3–4.

79 Carol Rosenberg, ‘Doctor describes and denounces CIA practice of “rectal feeding” of prisoners’, New York Times (24 February 2023), available at: {https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/24/us/politics/cia-torture-guantanamo-nashiri-doctor.html}.

80 Rosenberg, ‘Doctor describes and denounces’.

81 Rosenberg, ‘Doctor describes and denounces’.

82 Physicians for Human Rights, ‘CIA torture report highlights unnecessary medical procedure: rectal hydration and rectal feeding is not medically justified’ (10 December 2014), available at: {https://phr.org/news/cia-torture-report-highlights-unnecessary-medical-procedure/}.

83 UNOHCHR, ‘Information received’, p. 10.

84 Carol Rosenberg, ‘Trial guide: The Sept 11 case at Guantanamo Bay’, New York Times (3 February 2020), available at: {https://www.nytimes.com/article/september-11-trial-guantanamo-bay.html}.

85 Moustafa Bayoumi, ‘This 9/11 suspect and “torture prop” has spent 20 years in Guantánamo. Is he nearing a deal with the US?’, The Guardian (17 May 2023), available at: {https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/16/ammar-al-baluchi-guantanamo-bay-torture?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other}.

86 UNOHCHR, ‘Information received’.

87 UNOHCHR, ‘Information received’, pp. 4–5.

88 UNOHCHR, ‘Information received’, p. 6.

89 UNOHCHR, ‘Information received’, pp. 7–8.

90 UNOHCHR, ‘Information received’, pp. 2–4.

91 UNOHCHR, ‘Information received’, p. 7.

92 UNOHCHR, ‘Information received’, p. 9.

93 UNOHCHR, ‘Information received’, p. 9.

94 UNOHCHR, ‘Information received’, p. 11.

95 Patrick Hamilton, ‘Guantánamo: Detaining authorities must adapt to the needs of a rapidly ageing population’, ICRC (21 April 2023), available at: {https://www.icrc.org/en/document/guantanamo-detaining-authorities-must-adapt-needs-rapidly-ageing-population}.

96 Sveaass, ‘Gross human rights violations’, p. 9.

97 Connell et al., ‘Obstacles to torture rehabilitation’, p. 69.

98 John G. Baker, ‘Defending the rule of law: The Military Commissions Defense Organization’, The Champion (July 2016). See also UNOHCHR, ‘Opinions adopted’, p. 3.

99 Amanda Weston and Jacob Bindman, ‘Trial Observation Report. USA v Mohammed et al.’, Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (September 2021), p. 18, available at: {https://barhumanrights.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/BHRC-GITMO_Trial-Observation-Report-Final.pdf}.

100 Baker, ‘Defending the rule of law’.

101 Connell et al., ‘Obstacles to torture rehabilitation’, p. 69.

102 Baker, ‘Defending the rule of law’.

103 Weston and Bindman, ‘USA v Mohammed et al.’.

104 Jodie Blackstock, ‘Trial Observation Report USA v Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri’, Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (June 2023), available at: {https://barhumanrights.org.uk/bhrc-trial-observation-report-guantanamo-bay-military-commissions/}.

105 Weston and Bindman, ‘USA v Mohammed et al.’, p. 16.

106 Weston and Bindman, ‘USA v Mohammed et al.’, p. 17.

107 ‘Article 102’, Geneva Conventions of 1949: Convention (III), available at: {https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciii-1949/article-102?activeTab=undefined}.

108 David Glazier, Still a Bad Idea: Military Commissions under the Obama Administration (Los Angeles: Loyola Law School, 2010), p. 5.

109 Jay Bybee, ‘Memorandum for John Rizzo, Acting General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency. Interrogation of al Qaeda Operative’ (1 August 2002), available at: {http://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/pdf/PDF%2015%20[Bybee%20Memo%20to%20CIA%201%20Aug%202002].pdf}.

110 Blackstock, ‘USA v al-Nashiri’, p. 21.

111 Blackstock, ‘USA v al-Nashiri’, p. 21.

112 Blackstock, ‘USA v al-Nashiri’, p. 21.

113 Carol Rosenberg, ‘Guantánamo case nearing a decision on the lasting effects of torture’, New York Times (17 June 2023), available at: {https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/17/us/politics/guantanamo-torture-cia-cole-prisoner.html}.

114 Carol Rosenberg, ‘Lawyers press case that 9/11 confessions given to FBI are tainted’, New York Times (29 July 2019), available at: {https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/29/us/politics/september-11-confessions-guantanamo.html}.

115 Rosenberg, ‘Lawyers press case’.

116 Carol Rosenberg, ‘Judge throws out confession in USS Cole bombing case’, New York Times (19 August 2023), available at: {https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/guantanamo-cole-bombing-confession-torture.html}.

117 Email correspondence with Meghan Skelton, defence attorney to Nashwan al-Tamir, 3 September 2023.

118 CIA OIG, ‘Special review’.

119 CIA OIG, ‘Special review’; SSCI, Committee Study.

120 Spencer Ackerman, ‘Three senior officials lose their jobs at APA after US torture scandal’, The Guardian (14 July 2015), available at: {https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/14/apa-senior-officials-torture-report-cia}.

121 SSCI, Committee Study, p. 11.

122 John G. Baker, Mary E. Spears, and Katherine S. Newell, ‘Drinking from a poisoned chalice: A portrait of the US Military Commissions at Guantánamo’, in Steven J Barela, Mark Fallon, Gloria Gaggioli, and Jens David Ohlin (eds), Interrogation and Torture: Integrating Efficacy with Law and Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), pp. 519–33 (p. 524).

123 Weston and Bindman, ‘USA v Mohammed et al.’, p. 17.

124 Weston and Bindman, ‘USA v Mohammed et al.’, p. 18.

125 Weston and Bindman, ‘USA v Mohammed et al.’, p. 18.

126 Weston and Bindman, ‘USA v Mohammed et al.’, p. 18.

127 Wells Dixon, Expert Panel: The Guantanamo Military Commissions: Fair Trial Rights. Bar Human Rights Council of England and Wales (1 June 2023).

128 Email correspondence with Meghan Skelton, defence attorney to Nashwan al-Tamir, 3 September 2023.

129 Alan Dershowitz, ‘Tortured reasoning’, in Sanford Levinson (ed.), Torture: A Collection (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 257–80.

130 Sanford Levinson (ed.), Torture: A Collection (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); Elaine Scarry, ‘Five errors in the reasoning of Alan Dershowitz’, in Sandford Levinson (ed.), Torture: A Collection (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 281–90; Jordan Paust, ‘The absolute prohibition of torture and necessary and appropriate sanctions’, Valparaiso University Law Review, 43 (2009), pp. 1535–76; Maureen Ramsey, ‘Can the torture of terrorist suspects be justified?’, The International Journal of Human Rights, 10:2 (2006), pp. 103–19; Philippe Sands, Torture Team: Deception, Cruelty and the Compromise of Law (London: Allen Lane, 2008); Marnia Lazreg, Torture and the Twilight of Empire: From Algiers to Baghdad (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008); Darius Rejali, Torture and Democracy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007); Ruth Blakeley, ‘Why torture?’, Review of International Studies, 33:3 (2007), pp. 373–94; Ginbar, Why Not Torture Terrorists? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); Shane O’Mara, Why Torture Doesn’t Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015); Steven J. Barela et al. (eds), Interrogation and Torture: Integrating Efficacy with Law and Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020).

131 Ginbar, ‘Why not torture terrorists?’, p. 115.

132 Birdsall, ‘But we don’t call it “torture”!’, pp. 184–92; Sikkink, ‘The US and torture’, pp. 152–61; Percy and Sandholtz, ‘Why norms rarely die’, pp. 937–8; Pratt, Normative Transformation and the War on Terrorism, p. 116.

133 Jamal Barnes, ‘Suffering to save lives: Torture, cruelty, and moral disengagement in Australia’s offshore detention centres’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 35:4 (2022), pp. 1508–29; James Cavallaro, Diala Shamas, and Beth Van Schaack, ‘Communiqué to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court: The situation in Nauru and Manus Island’ (2017), available at: {https://law.stanford.edu/publications/communique-to-the-office-of-the-prosecutor-of-the-international-criminal-court-under-article-15-of-the-rome-statute-the-situation-in-nauru-and-manus-island-liability-for-crimes-against-humanity/}; Nils Melzer, ‘A/HRC/37/50’ (2018), available at: {https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc3750-report-migration-related-torture}; Omid Tofighian and Behrouz Boochani, ‘Narrative, resistance and Manus Prison Theory’, Review of Middle East Studies, 54:2 (2020), pp. 174–95.

134 Médecins Sans Frontières, ‘Indefinite despair: The tragic mental health consequences of offshore processing on Nauru’ (2018), available at: {https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/report-indefinite-despair#:~:text=Close%20to%20one%2Dthird%20of,patients%20needed%20treatment%20for%20psychosis}; Cavallaro et al.,‘Communiqué to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court’.

135 Boochani uses Manus to reflect on Australia’s propensity for colonial violence. See Behrouz Boochani and Omid Tofighian, ‘No friend but the mountains and Manus Prison Theory: In conversation’, Borderlands Journal, 19:1 (2020), pp. 8–26; Omid Tofighian, ‘Introducing Manus Prison Theory: Knowing border violence’, Globalizations, 17:7 (2020), pp. 1138–56.

136 Ruth Blakeley and Sam Raphael, ‘Accountability, denial and the future-proofing of British torture’, International Affairs, 96:3 (2020), pp. 691–709; Frank Foley, ‘The (de)legitimation of torture: Rhetoric, shaming and narrative contestation in two British cases’, European Journal of International Relations, 27:1 (2020), pp. 102–26.