CEU Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2017
| Author | Muntean, Liana Norica |
|---|---|
| Title | Determining Torture in Interrogation Cases. Comparative Analysis of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights, the UN Bodies, and the U.S. Courts |
| Summary | This study provides an extended outlook on the process of determining torture in interrogation cases from the ECtHR, the UN bodies (the UN Committee Against Torture and the UN Human Rights Committee) and the U.S. The study contributes to a better understanding of the current interpretation of the definition of torture as it provides an extensive and detailed analysis of the classical situation in which torture takes place, the interrogation setting. The main areas discussed in this research include (1) the elements that prevail in assessing torture claims, i.e. severity and intention&purpose, and how they are determined in the case law; (2) other factors that can be taken into account and their consequences on the definition of torture and on the overall evolution of the torture case law; (3) whether there is a uniform view of what amounts to torture in the context of interrogations; (4) the evolution of the threshold for torture in interrogations. The dissertation shows that severity is the element that prevails in the definition of torture, while purpose and intention are merely secondary elements, placed somewhere in the background. With regard to pain and suffering specific of severe ill-treatment, the study shows how a quantitative approach (the effects on the victim expressed by the amount and gravity of injuries or the number of acts inflicted) has been largely the main criteria for determining the severity of an ill-treatment and its overall qualification of torture. Other criteria include the cruel nature of an ill-treatment and, gradually gaining in importance, the vulnerability of the victim, two criteria which render secondary the classic elements of the definition of torture. The dissertation also shows that the quantification method used in interpreting “severe pain or suffering” has pushed the uniform agreement on what amounts to torture towards higher thresholds of pain or suffering. While recent developments give more meaning to psychological suffering and to the victim’s vulnerability the overall threshold for torture remains elevated. It is concluded that for legal purposes, the UN definition of torture is a well done construct and that it is the case law that should give more substance to the principles and ideals that inspired the prohibition of torture, an issue that becomes more obvious in seemingly borderline cases. |
| Supervisor | Sajo, Andras |
| Department | Legal Studies PhD |
| Full text | https://www.etd.ceu.edu/2017/muntean_liana.pdf |
Visit the CEU Library.
© 2007-2021, Central European University