32768 of torture

The CPT ( Convention for the Prevention of Torture, Inhuman or Degrading treatment or punishment are allowed to visits to places of detention, in order to assess how persons deprived of their liberty are treated. These places include prisons, juvenile detention centres, police stations, holding centres for immigration detainees, psychiatric hospitals, social care homes, etc. CPT delegations have unlimited access to places of detention, and the right to move inside such places without restriction. They interview persons deprived of their liberty in private, and communicate freely with anyone who can provide information.

After each visit, the CPT sends a detailed report to the State concerned. This report includes the CPT’s findings, and its recommendations, comments and requests for information. The CPT also requests a detailed response to the issues raised in its report. These reports and responses form part of the ongoing dialogue with the States concerned. The CPT’s full title is the “European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”. This highlights two important features: first, it is European, and second, it not only covers “torture”, but also a whole range of situations, which could amount to “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

Visits are carried out by delegations, usually made up of several CPT members, accompanied by staff members of the Committee's Secretariat and, if necessary, by additional experts and interpreters. CPT delegations carry out visits on a periodic basis (usually once every four years), but additional “ad hoc” visits are carried out when necessary. The Committee must notify the State concerned that it intends to carry out a visit. After notification, the CPT delegation may go to any place where persons are be deprived of their liberty at any time and without notice.

It shows the basics on why Boris Johnson the American who took the permanent UK nationality in 2016 to obstruct Theresa May in every way possible to be the leader of Britain and step out of the EU. He can after that ignore human rights in every form, something that will hurt the very people who wanted to get out of the EU based on the lies and fantasies of Boris Johnson, remember his bus of saving 300 million for the National Health service, a complete proven lie. But the UK people just as the people of Germany under Hitler loving it and they will go on loving it till it is too late.

The established common law provisions, section 134 Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it an offence for any public official to ‘intentionally inflict severe pain or suffering on another in the perfomance … of his official duties’. This provision was introduced to honour the UK’s commitments under the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Torture Convention).

Under international law, torture is not only prohibited under such instruments as Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Torture Convention. It has become recognised as a pre-emptory norm of international law that binds all states whether they have signed instruments such as the Torture Convention or not. The prohibition against torture under Article 3 ECHR is also one of the few rights that cannot be derogated from in a state of emergency under Article 15.

The various international instruments prohibiting torture not only make it unlawful for UK officials to commit torture but also forbid, for example, the UK sending people to countries where they face a real risk of torture. Although the government maintains that it would never return someone to a country where they face a risk of torture, the Human Rights Act 1998 is regularly relied upon in extradition and deportation cases to challenge the government’s assessment of whether a risk of ill-treatment exists. Even more controversial is the UK government’s negotiation of Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with countries such as Jordan and Libya, in order to deport suspects to countries where torture is known to be used. JUSTICE and Human Rights Watch are jointly intervening in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v OO in the House of Lords at the end of October to argue that MoUs cannot safely be relied upon.

The conduct of the UK forces themselves, in particular the treatment of prisoners and the death of Baha Mousa, has highlighted defects in the guidance given to British soldiers concerning the proper treatment of detainees. There is an issue about the jurisdiction of British courts to punish torturers and provide redress to victims. Although the Pinochet case in 1999 established that foreign heads of state could not claim immunity from prosecution. The 2005 prosecution of an Afghan warlord in the Old Bailey showed the ability to exercise universal jurisdiction for torture in criminal cases, the doctrine of state immunity in civil cases has still prevented many victims of torture from suing foreign governments in British courts to obtain redress against their torturers.

Although torture is clearly outlawed in the UK, the concept of inhuman and degrading treatment has clear relevance to how detainees are treated in prisons, asylum detention centres, mental health facilities and youth detention centres. The High Court recently warned that guidance on the use of ‘pain compliance techniques’ used on young people in secure training centres is be contrary to Article 3 ECHR. Preventing a detainee from sleeping by use of bright lights and loud noises might not be sufficiently severe to qualify as torture, but it would likely qualify as inhuman treatment. In both cases, torture can be physical or non-physical like the treatment of Julian Assange in Belmars Prison, on UK government instruction. The main reason Julian Assange is in Prison is not because he committed a crime but because of releasing the collateral Murder video of a deadly army (US) attack on Iraqi citizens from a helicopter, the result was the realise the report of the deadly crimes by the US in Afghanistan.

First, he was held on a fantasy charge from Sweden, but they dropped the charges, and UK took over, by first inhuman imprisoning him the Ecuadorian Embassy, while with sadistic smiles on the faces of the police they dragged an ill person out in a way that was written in Nazi Germany...

The exact threshold is relative but in both cases, the ill-treatment must go beyond the inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment. The European Court of Human Rights has also made clear that the distinction ‘depends on all the circumstances of the case. In such cases it applies to the duration of the treatment and its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim’. However, Boris Johnson refuses to obey International law unless he can use it, refuses EU laws unless he can use it, and he will have free hands after 31/12/2020 to break any agreement any law, just as he has done over the last 3.5 years.

The government is failing to provide support to destitute asylum seekers under section 55 Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The case is obvious, look at the case of Julian Assange held in prison on Governments instructions, not that he committed a crime, he committed an offence by breaking bail instructions for which he was jailed. Then he was kept in jail to please America, in which country he did NOT committed any crime. However, in America telling the truth is a crime, hence you never hear their president ever telling the truth. Julian Assange is held in the most notorious prison in Britain, on the must be sadistic principle of a leader in Britain who so far while he is in power, never has told the truth and is a staunch supporter of Joseph Goebbels, the well know Nazi and pray’s to his God Trump we presume. Assange has lung diseases, and several related illnesses, severe mental problems for which he has no treatment, as that would stop the torture the Belmar’s prison torture on him, by orders of the UK government.

It defines why the clone of US president Trump in Britain, an American born citizen who only after the made deal with Trump in 2016 changed permanent to a UK citizenship, to with lies and cheating rolling his way to the UK leadership. And a mess he has made so far of it. However, Johnson breaches international law as the Torture Convention prohibits both torture, on the one hand, and inhuman and degrading treatment, on the other. However, its provisions sometimes draw a distinction, so that the UK government has – for instance – sometimes argued that the bar against returning a suspect to a risk of ‘lesser’ kinds of ill-treatment is not as absolute as the bar against returning a suspect to torture.

But, under EU laws he also breaches the Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits both torture and inhuman and degrading treatment equally. For example in the Saadi v Italy, for instance, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights rejected the UK government’s argument that a lesser degree of protection applied where the suspect is a risk to national security, noting that ‘such an approach is not compatible with the absolute nature of the protection afforded by Article 3’. Since Article 3 is directly enforceable in UK courts under section 6 Human Rights Act, it is likely that the exact distinction is less relevant in UK law. It is another one of the reason Johnson wants to get out of the EU he wants torture and sees torture as a necessity to support his lies. But, allowing torture, just to please his master Trump is wrong.

Other pages:

This is the text-only version of this page. Click here to see this page with graphics.
Edit this page | Manage website
Make Your Own Website: 2-Minute-Website.com