India has been a signatory to UNCAT since 1997, but it remains one of the nine countries in the world which have not ratified this Convention. These practices harm the physical and mental integrity of an individual and expose them to pain, community degradation and humiliation. Further, Article 10 of the Covenant prohibits torture and ill-treatment. The HRC held that it would fundamentally depend on all the circumstances of the case. The Human Rights Commission (HRC) has extensively appraised the issue that whether a particular treatment constitutes a violation of Article 7 of the ICCPR. Intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering Ģ.ğor a specific purpose, such as to obtain information, as punishment, or to intimidate, or for any reason based on discrimination ģ.ěy or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of State authorities. Article 1 of the UNCAT identifies three elements which constitute torture –ġ. International Conventions and the Indian ScenarioĬommitting torture is a grave breach of humanitarian law. Yet, India has failed to implement a comprehensive regime to confront this pernicious issue. They fall in the gamut of torturous activities which are prohibited in the domain of international law. Such brutal practices should find no scope in the criminal justice system as they are dehumanizing and stand in explicit violation of the fundamental human rights. The domain of criminal justice system is infiltrated with such shameful practices in the name of punishment and investigation. In Aceh, a female flogging squad was constituted in order to punish the women flouting Islamic Law. In the past decade, Maldives had become notorious for flogging its abused and raped women on charges of adultery. In Singapore, a British schoolboy was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment and subjected to caning. Recently, the abhorrent practice of custodial torture has been brought to the fore with the incidents of George Floyd in the United States of America, and Jayaraj and Bennix in India.
The practice of torture persists in various forms in many nations. Despite this, it is extremely unfortunate that this horrendous practice exists unabated in society, with a hint of implicit acceptance. The prohibition of torture has attained the status of jus cogens or the peremptory norm of international law which gives rise to obligation erga omnes to take action against those who perpetrate torture. Irrespective of the nature of the crime that is to be punished, however brutal it may be, it is the firm opinion of the Committee that corporal punishment constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment contrary to Article 7 of the Covenant.
Jamaica, the Human Rights Committee held that: Essentially, a ban on torture requires States to provide humane treatment at all times. Under Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), all degrading treatments are prohibited.
Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention and Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) also cast a ban on torture. The prohibition on torture can be traced to Article 2 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). It is a form of human rights violation regarding which a significant number of Conventions and Declarations exist in the international realm.
Torture is the most outrageous violation of the Fundamental Rights of an individual which directly strikes at the heart of personal liberty. Torture of a human being by another human being is essentially an instrument to impose the will of the ‘strong’ over the ‘weak’ by suffering
0 kommentar(er)
