Exclusion of evidence obtained under torture
Statements obtained under torture are not admissible evidence in court proceedings in many jurisdictions.
International law
Article 15 of the 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture specify that:
Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
A similar provision is also found in Article 10 of the 1985 Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture:
No statement that is verified as having been obtained through torture shall be admissible as evidence in a legal proceeding, except in a legal action taken against a person or persons accused of having elicited it through acts of torture, and only as evidence that the accused obtained such statement by such means.
These provisions have the double dissuasive effect of nullifying any utility in using torture with the purpose of eliciting a confession, as well as confirming that should a person extract statements by torture, this can be used against him or her in criminal proceedings.[1] The reason for this is because experience has shown that under torture, or even under a threat of torture, a person will say or do anything solely to avoid the pain. As a result, there is no way to know whether or not the resulting statement is actually correct. If any court relies on any evidence obtained from torture regardless of validity, it provides an incentive for state officials to force a confession, creating a marketplace for torture, both domestically and overseas.[2]
Within national borders
Most states have prohibited their legal systems from accepting evidence that is extracted by torture. The question of the use of evidence obtained under torture has arisen in connection with prosecutions during the
UK "torture by proxy"
The
In 2003, Murray suggested that it was "wrong to use information gleaned from torture".
Murray's accusations[further explanation needed] did not lead to any investigation by his employer, the FCO, and he resigned after disciplinary action was taken against him in 2004. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office itself was being investigated by the National Audit Office because of accusations that it has victimized, bullied and intimidated its own staff.[8]
Murray later stated that he felt that he had unwittingly stumbled upon what has been called "torture by proxy".[9] He thought that Western countries moved people to regimes and nations where it was known that information would be extracted by torture, and made available to them.[citation needed]
During a House of Commons debate on 7 July 2009, MP David Davis accused the UK government of outsourcing torture, by allowing Rangzieb Ahmed to leave the country (even though they had evidence against him upon which he was later convicted for terrorism) to Pakistan, where it is said the Inter-Services Intelligence was given the go-ahead by the British intelligence agencies to torture Ahmed. Davis further accused the government of trying to gag Ahmed, stopping him coming forward with his accusations after he had been imprisoned back in the UK. He said, there was "an alleged request to drop his allegations of torture: if he did that, they could get his sentence cut and possibly give him some money. If this request to drop the torture case is true, it is frankly monstrous. It would at the very least be a criminal misuse of the powers and funds under the Government's Contest strategy, and at worst a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."[10]
United States
In May 2008,
On 28 October 2008, Guantanamo military judge
In the 2010 New York trial of
See also
References
- ISBN 978-0-1995-7894-8.
- ^ "Exclusion of evidence obtained through torture". Association for the Prevention of Torture. Archived from the original on 7 February 2015. Retrieved 7 February 2015.
- ^ "'Rendition' and secret detention: A global system of human rights violations", Amnesty International, 1 January 2006
- ^ Murray, Craig (11 July 2005). "Extraordinary Rendition". www.craigmurray.co.uk. Archived from the original on 28 July 2012.
- ^ Gedye, Robin (23 October 2004). "The envoy silenced after telling undiplomatic truths". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 26 August 2010.
Murray fired off a memorandum to the Foreign Office last July suggesting that Britain's intelligence services were wrong to use information gleaned from torture victims
- ^ "Torture evidence inadmissible in UK courts, Lords rules". The Guardian. 8 December 2005.
- ^ Silverman, Jon (8 December 2005). "Torture ruling's international impact". BBC.
- The Sunday Times.
- ^ Remnick, David. "An interview with Jane Mayer". The New Yorker on 14 February 2005. Archived from the original on 20 December 2008.
- ^ Davis, David (7 July 2009). "Government Policy (Torture Overseas)". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol. 495. Parliament of the United Kingdom: House of Commons. col. 940–943. Retrieved 11 July 2009.
- ^ a b Q&A: Guantanamo detentions BBC News, 22 January 2009.
- ^ Qhatani remains imprisoned at Guantanamo. Woodward, Bob Detainee Tortured, Says U.S. Official Washington Post, 14 January 2009.
- ^ "Court hears arguments over detainee's confession". USA Today. Associated Press. 13 January 2009. Retrieved 16 November 2011.
- ^ "Guantanamo Judge Rejects Evidence Obtained Through Torture in Jawad Case". yubanet.com. Archived from the original on 2 April 2015.
- ^ "Guantánamo Judge Throws Out More Evidence Obtained Through Torture in Jawad Case". American Civil Liberties Union.
- ^ usatoday13Jan2009>
- ^ a b Weiser, Benjamin,Detainee Acquitted on Most Counts in ’98 Bombings New York Times, 17 November 2010
- ^ a b Rhee, Nissa, Guantánamo detainee's Sentence Renews Debate About Civilian Trials, Christian Science Monitor, 26 January 2011.