Combating torture and ill-treatment – 40 years on the global agenda
by Nora Sveaass, Em. Professor of Psychology of the University of Oslo. She served two terms on the United Nations Committee against Torture.
“After what happened I can no longer call myself a woman. They held me for three days…. many men. I could only hear them, I was blindfolded and knew nothing about where they had taken me. They raped me, harassed me, touched me in terrible ways, said terrible things…….it went on and on… and things I cannot describe. When they said they had taken my daughter and would do with her what they did to me, I tried not to fight back any more. This is the most painful thing now……..I was dropped in a gutter, managed to go home and found my daughter there, terrified because I had been gone. But nobody had taken her anywhere. It was a relief. And in that moment, I decided to leave the country” (Amalia, 38)
“I was confused, they deliberately created this chaos. For long I was in isolation. I received some water and food, but did not know whether it was day or night. They would often wake me up when I tried to sleep. Many times. They took me out only for interrogation. It was as if inflicting pain was more important than the questions they posed to me. The worst to think about today was the torture I received in a dentist’s chair….rusty pliers were applied to take out or crush my teeth. And, when they forced me to be present during the torture of another, young prisoner” (Javed, 42)
What Amalia and Javed have in common is that they are survivors of torture, probably the most gruesome and devastating human rights violation. But a violation still practiced, despite the total prohibition against it. The consequences of torture are so many and so brutal, and it almost impossible to grasp the full impact of this inhumane treatment. In the aftermath, the survivor may lose faith in him-or herself, and in other human beings. Dignity feels taken away, integrity severely attacked, high level of fear and insecurity created, total lack of control and agency and sense of never again being able to function as a human being.
These are among the reactions we frequently meet in victims of torture. And there are the many physical injuries – burnings, beatings and hanging, resulting in head injuries, muscle pain, constant nausea, and reduced function in general. The process to reconstruction and taking back one’s life again, may be a long one. And this can seldom be done alone.
On December 10, 1984, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and three years later the Convention came into force. The drafting had taken time, and international legal experts and various state representatives had been together in the process. Today 174 of UN’s 193 member-states have ratified the Torture Convention. When states ratify this convention, the provisions are legally binding, meaning that not only must the convention be respected and implemented, but national law must be adjusted for states to fully comply with the treaty. By way of ratification, the states agree to be monitored, allowing the intentional community to be informed about compliance. States undergo periodic reviews regarding measures taken to implement, abide by and respect the convention. In this process, taking place every 4 years, states submit reports to the UN Committee against torture (CAT), the treaty body established to monitor the convention. The committee also receives reports from other UN bodies and from Civil Society organizations. This is of particular importance, as Civil Society reports are concrete and problem focused, often challenging the information provided by the states themselves.
So, what are the main provisions in the Torture Convention? What are the states obliged to do? And how may these serve as guidance to psychologists?
The overarching aim of the convention is to prohibit torture and ill-treatment, and nothing can ever justify the use of torture. There is no impunity for acts of torture, rendering it important that reporting, and documentation takes place when there are allegations of torture. Preventing torture is vital, in public facilities as well as in non-state contexts (art.2). This means that protection against violence and prevention of harm is a state responsibility, regardless of who is perpetuating the violence or abuse. Psychologists often find themselves in situations where preventing torture and ill-treatment is both possible and doable – and required. The obligation not to send persons seeking protection in another country back to torture (art. 3), may also involve psychologists, for documentation and assessment of former violations and possible risks at return. The obligation to inform and train legal as well as health professionals in the prohibition and documentation of torture (art. 10) means that human rights education is required, and states must report on how they fulfil this. Finally – the right to redress for victims of torture (art. 14), regardless of where the torture has taken place, requires multidisciplinary approaches. Redress also includes rehabilitation, something which requires knowledge, insight and methods of intervention in our encounters with survivors of torture.
On this very day, Dec 10, 40 years after adoption, we can undoubtedly say that a lot has been accomplished. But with the world situation today, the call is to intensify work against torture, strengthen protection and care for those who have suffered brutality and injustice. Psychologists’ engagement here is pivotal!