October 1, 2024 • 31 mins
For 40 years, there has been an absolute ban on torture. But it still happens…
“Horrific things can happen to you. Nobody is there to help you. Nobody is there to document it, etc. And I think sometimes we speak about torture without putting ourselves in the shoes of what this is,” says Gerald Staberock from the World Organisation Against Torture.
On our Inside Geneva podcast this week, host Imogen Foulkes finds out how the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment came about.
“The convention came in the 1980s, arising out of terrible situations in Latin America, the dictatorships in Chile and Argentina in particular. And of course, torture, enforced disappearances, and killings were used as a matter of course to suppress their populations and to suppress opposition,” explains Alice Edwards, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.
Today, some say torture might be justified in certain circumstances.
“We didn’t outlaw torture because it works or not. We didn’t outlaw slavery because it doesn’t work. We didn’t outlaw robbery because it doesn’t work, but because it is wrong,” says Staberock.
As of today, 174 states have ratified the convention…but are they honouring it?
“There is pushback, it’s definitely on the rise I would say because torture is also on the rise. Torture is universally condemned but widely practised,” continues Edwards.
How should we mark the 40th anniversary?
“So much more has to be done to really eradicate torture. We have to recognise that it is still a problem, and we have to recognise it as a problem. For a torturer, for individuals, for society. A society that tortures is a sick society,” says Staberock.
Join host Imogen Foulkes on Inside Geneva.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
In today's programme, you're completely at the grace
of people.
Horrific things can happen toyou.
Nobody is there to help you.
Nobody is there to document.
Speaker 4 (00:32):
They beat me when they first took me.
They hung me from the ceilingfor an hour.
My legs were not touching theground.
They beat us for three dayswith water pipes.
We were bleeding.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
The General Assembly enacted the Convention against
Torture in 1984.
There are over 170 stateparties to the convention.
Speaker 5 (00:56):
One of the very interesting things about this
whole area of torture is thattorture is universally condemned
but widely practiced.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
There are so many studies out there that torture
doesn't produce security.
Torture doesn't produce theright results unless the purpose
of torture which it often is isto terrorize societies.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Fowkes Now.
Regular listeners will knowthat from time to time on this
podcast we take a deep dive intosome of the conventions and
international laws that theworld has agreed to in an
attempt, not always successful,to keep us humane and civilised.
(01:42):
Today, as you may have guessedfrom our introduction, we're
going to take a look at theConvention Against Torture with
two very knowledgeable experts.
Speaker 5 (01:52):
I'm Alice Edwards.
I'm the UN's Special Rapporteuron Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatmentor Punishment.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
I'm Gareth Starbuck.
I'm the Secretary General ofthe World Organization Against
Torture.
In our work, we try to make aworld that looks pretty broken
these days a little bit betterand to give a little bit of hope
.
Speaker 6 (02:15):
Torture is one of the most serious crimes that can be
committed against a human being.
It aims to dehumanise throughcalculated acts of cruelty, to
remove victims' dignity and toleave them powerless.
It often leaves scars for alifetime.
This is why, in 1984, theConvention Against Torture was
(02:36):
adopted.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
The Convention Against Torture is this year
marking its 40th anniversary.
Year marking its 40thanniversary.
Now, like me, some of you maybe thinking that 1984 was a
little late for this particularinternational law, especially
when the world had adopted theUniversal Declaration on Human
Rights way back in 1948, in thehope of preventing the kind of
(03:01):
horror and cruelty that tookplace during the Second World
War.
In fact, as Gerald Stabarok ofthe World Organization Against
Torture explains, the 1984convention has its roots in that
declaration of 1948.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
Of course, in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, you have, as one of thefoundations as well, an absolute
ban on torture.
So I think the UniversalDeclaration coming after the war
was quite clear that there arethings that are so abhorrent
that they are so central to whowe are as a humanity that the
(03:40):
absolute prohibition has to bepart of it.
But you're right, why did ittake them so long for a specific
and dedicated document?
Or, in other words, you wouldalso ask why was it still needed
if it was already outlawedbefore?
And I think this is somethingwe hear quite often.
We think about torture in termsof the Spanish Inquisition, and
(04:01):
I had people asking me on thestreets in Tunisia when we had a
campaign it's still there?
Yes, it is still there, and Ithink it became then clear that,
in order to eradicate, you needmuch more than just a phrase in
a declaration.
You need a movement againsttorture.
You need a clear legalframework that prevents torture
(04:23):
in the first place, that makesit explicit that you have to
prosecute those responsible fortorture in the whole chain of
command that is concerned, andto provide a really holistic
framework to go against torture.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
So, as Gerald points out, those post-World War II
hopes and promises didn'tdeliver a perfect world.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
This hallway, this place was empty.
First they slammed me againstthe wall.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Humans continued to be cruel and they continued to
torture.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
They tied my feet to my hands, which were already
handcuffed.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
But as Alice Edwards, the UN's special rapporteur on
torture, explains, there came akey moment in the 1980s when
countries emerging from cruelrepressive regimes pushed hard
for a global ban on torture.
Speaker 5 (05:27):
The convention came in in the 1980s arising out of
terrible situations in LatinAmerica, the dictatorships in
Chile and Argentina inparticular, and of course
torture and forceddisappearances and killings were
used as a matter of course tosuppress their populations and
to suppress opposition Out ofsight out of mind.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
We can easily forget those locked away from society.
Behind many closed doors, awayfrom view.
There are things that go onthat shouldn't.
Torture is one of those things.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Today, the convention has been ratified by 174 states
.
On paper, the vast majority ofcountries back it.
Alice Edwards believes thetreaty, with the key obligations
it imposes on governments, is abig step forward from the
Universal Declaration on HumanRights.
Speaker 5 (06:34):
Absolutely, and let me tell you a couple of reasons
why.
First of all, these areessentially, in international
law terms, binding standards.
It means that states consent tobe bound by them.
They've agreed to a blueprintfor the actions that they're
supposed to take.
It's very good for monitoringtheir progress against those
(06:55):
benchmarks.
And actually the convention hasa very nice kind of five, what
I would call a five-point plan,five Ps Now, maybe that is too
much UN speak, but five Ps thatset out in very easy to
understand steps of what statesare supposed to do.
I can run through those for youif you like, briefly.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
Yeah, quickly just run through them.
I mean it's a podcast, allright.
Speaker 5 (07:22):
So the first is prevention.
The overarching goal of theconvention is that states take
all measures necessary toprevent torture.
The second is the prohibitionon torture.
In other words, states aresupposed to set up a legal
framework to criminalise thecrime of torture and to ensure
(07:42):
that all of these steps areentrenched in law.
The third area is that whereacts of torture or other inhuman
treatment occur, states have anobligation to investigate and,
if there are substantiatedgrounds, to prosecute those
individuals.
The fourth P that I refer to ispunishment.
(08:02):
Persons, in order to endimpunity for these crimes, need
to be punished, and thatpunishment must fit the gravity
of the offence that they havecommitted.
And the fifth area is alsoreally important it's about
protection of witnesses andvictims, as well as
rehabilitation for victims andsurvivors.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
I'm just wondering if you're seeing another P, though
, and that is pushback.
I mean thinking, for example,about Donald Trump when he was
campaigning to be president in2016, and now he could be
president again.
He publicly said at a campaignrally that torture works.
Speaker 5 (08:40):
This question, this age-old question of does torture
work?
Is a very curious one to me,and I'll tell you why.
It's like asking does violencework?
Well, it depends on what you'retrying to achieve.
Torture is used to oppresspeople, it's used to instill
fear in people, it's used toferment hatred amongst groups
(09:04):
and it is used to hurt people.
It's used to ferment hatredamongst groups and it is used to
hurt people.
Now, if they are your objectives, then torture works very well.
I'm not someone that saystorture doesn't work in those
circumstances.
Torture has been usedthroughout the ages to do
exactly those things, but that'sprecisely why it's absolutely
prohibited in the modern era.
(09:25):
Now, the reason it's asked fortorture is because we often
think about torture being usedin the context of interrogation
or interviewing suspects or forintelligence gathering, and
that's where, actually, there'sa lot of research and evidence
to show that it doesn't work,that it's an ineffective way of
collecting evidence or securinga confession, and, of course,
(09:48):
the questions we have to askourselves is whether you can
rely on that information, allthose confessions that you
gather.
People will do almost anythingto avoid pain.
Speaker 8 (10:00):
Imitating what the guards did.
They wouldn't let me sleep,says Farid, who spent seven
years in different cages.
Speaker 9 (10:06):
Would you allow US interrogators to waterboard
terrorist prisoners in order toextract information?
Absolutely, absolutely.
You know.
I said I'd prove it immediately, but I'd make it also much
worse.
They said what do you mean?
I said I'd do much worse.
And don't tell me it doesn'twork.
Torture works okay, folksTorture.
(10:28):
You know, I have these guys.
Torture doesn't work.
Believe me, it works okay.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
But Alice and her colleagues on the UN Committee
Against Torture know all toowell that, despite widespread
support for the convention alltoo well that despite widespread
support for the conventiontorture still continues and
attitudes towards it areambivalent.
A survey carried out by the RedCross in 2020 revealed that
over a third of under 35sbelieved torture was acceptable,
(11:00):
in some cases, with an evenhigher proportion in the US and
the UK thinking torture could bejustified to get information
that might prevent, for example,a terrorist attack.
Despite that, Gerald Stabarokbelieves the convention is
hugely important.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
I think 40 years of a convention.
I'd like to start with acelebration in some way.
I think there are enormousinroads we've made in so many
places in terms of the legalframework, in terms of the
preventive aspect, that we havenow in 80 countries, mechanisms
(11:39):
that can walk into any detentionplace without prior notice,
which is a considerableachievement, but also that you
have much more organizations andcivil society who can mobilize
on the torture prohibition, thatcan engage their governments,
that works with victims tore-establish their lives in many
(12:00):
ways.
But yes, we have pushbacks andI think, especially in these
days, they're very considerablepushbacks.
You have had a similar podcastabout the universality of rights
.
We feel that this is a world ofdouble standards, which is a
poison to universality, and Ithink then we have to see that
(12:21):
torture becomes more tolerableand if we allow this to happen,
we allow the universality ofhuman rights and of our humanity
.
It's a big word, but that'swhat it is to go down as well.
In the end and this isimportant to me as well, because
we speak so sanitized veryoften about torture it sounds
(12:41):
very abstract, but just putyourself into the shoe of
somebody who's detained in oneof these places these days could
be in Gaza, and you're detained, you're completely at the grace
of people.
Horrific things can happen toyou.
Nobody's there to help you,nobody's there to document, etc.
And I think sometimes we speakabout torture without putting
(13:04):
ourselves into the shoes whatthis is.
When we see this and imaginethis, we know why it is outlawed
under any circumstances.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Let's dig a bit deeper into that, because we do
hear sometimes people caveatabout this.
They say, well, yes, it's awful, but in some cases it works
about this they said well, yes,it's awful, but in some cases it
works.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
Well, I mean, my first answer to this is we
didn't outlaw torture because itworks or not.
We didn't outlaw slaverybecause it doesn't work as an
economic model, as the specialrapporteur on torture said.
We didn't outlaw robberybecause it doesn't work, but
because it is wrong.
And I think, beyond this, ofcourse, there are all these
(13:49):
studies that it is highlyunprofessional to use torture,
that you don't yield the properresult, that people tell you
whatever they are.
But it's really not thedecisive point.
The decisive point is do wehave certain standards that
apply to everyone and anywhere?
And this is why, again, theuniversality issue is important,
because these days you have theimpression I have empathy to
(14:12):
victims, depending on who theyare and by whom they have been
victimized.
The universality of human rightsis about whoever.
It doesn't matter whetheryou're a good guy or bad guy
when it comes to torture.
It's really not the point.
It doesn't matter whether youbelong to one group or the other
.
And if we don't understand thisand the centrality of the
absolute prohibition as thebasis for what universality
(14:36):
means, I think we are in verydifficult waters.
But really it is about law, itis about standards, it is about
morals, it is about ethics.
But, yes, I mean, there are somany studies out there that
torture doesn't produce security.
Torture doesn't produce theright results unless the purpose
of torture which it often is isto terrorize societies.
(14:57):
Hundreds of prisoners wererounded up and taken to the
national stadium.
Speaker 6 (15:09):
We slept on the floor .
Speaker 4 (15:10):
It was very cold.
We had to leave a small passageso that the soldiers would come
and get us in the night to takeus to the torture and
interrogation rooms.
Sometimes some of our comradesleft and never returned.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
Well, there are governments out there who are
keen on terrorising theirpopulations in a bid to keep
them meek, biddable andbasically silent.
But most of them have actuallyratified the Convention Against
Torture.
It's Alice Edwards' job toremind them of their obligations
.
So I had another question forher.
(15:53):
You are the UN SpecialRapporteur on torture.
You deal with countries, withtheir law enforcement.
Could you give me a flavour ofthat?
Are most countries happy to seeyou, happy to take your advice,
or do you get pushback?
Or do people treat you like anuisance?
Speaker 5 (16:12):
It all depends.
To be honest.
I have a lot of goodcooperation with a wide range of
countries, including thosecountries that perhaps have a
poorer track record of torturethan others.
I also have pushback.
I also face silence.
I also face accusations ofproviding false or misleading
(16:34):
information.
So there is pushback providingfalse or misleading information
so there is pushback.
It's definitely on the rise, Iwould say, because torture is
also on the rise.
One of the very interestingthings about this whole area of
torture is that torture isuniversally condemned but widely
practiced.
(16:54):
So states are very clear thatthey condemn and object to
torture but, on the other hand,on the sides, behind closed
doors, it might in fact be awidespread practice in their
countries.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
Does that discourage you?
Speaker 5 (17:11):
I think you know the role of special rapporteur on
torture comes with a lot ofheaviness.
To be honest, there's a hugeburden of responsibility to keep
the focus on these types ofcrimes when, of course, there
are a lot of other challenges inthe world.
I take heart by the small andsteady pace of some countries
(17:38):
and a growing number that arereally are trying to do the
right thing, that are reformingtheir laws, that have learnt
from their past that torture andthe use of it only creates
divisions in society, and tomove forward in the 21st century
they need to bridge those gaps.
But of course, there's a wholelist of countries that do
(18:00):
practice torture systematically,that it is still part of their
state policy, and breaking thatcycle, breaking those mindsets,
is the work that myself and manyothers really have to do on a
daily basis.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
And there's another side to the convention support
and reparation for those whohave endured it.
Gerald Stabarok and hiscolleagues work with survivors
of torture.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
You know, many people ask me whether I'm deeply
depressed because I work on adire issue.
But it's a little bit likeasking a doctor whether he's
depressed dealing with diseases.
I see the cure and I thinkworking with survivors is very,
very, very encouraging becauseyou can see how you rebuild
lives.
Torture is not just a violationthat happens physically, with
(18:50):
the traces you have, but itstays your life, with
psychological traces inparticular, but it stays you
alive, with psychological tracesin particular.
But it is a work that globallyis done more and more to put
survivors back in their shoes,that they contribute to their
societies, that they canmaintain their families, because
torture really destroys thefabric of society as well.
But we are a civil societynetwork.
(19:11):
We work with 200 organizationsaround the world where torture
is rampant, and that we cansupport those organizations,
give them the feeling they'repart of a global struggle, not
in isolation, is tremendouslyimportant.
And what stands out to me isthese people in countries where
it is dangerous to work ontorture, where it is difficult,
(19:33):
who dedicate their life to doingthis, and this is just an
extraordinary experience ifwe're able to help them.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
The convention requires states holding a
suspected torturer to prosecuteor extradite him, and protect
and compensate torture victims.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
And on the UN side there is a perhaps lesser-known
aspect of the support theConvention can offer.
Alice Edwards doesn't justvisit countries, go into their
prisons and detention centresand scrutinise governments.
Individual survivors of torturecan bring their own complaints
(20:09):
directly to her.
So how does that work inpractice?
How do governments respond?
Speaker 5 (20:16):
It's a bit of a mixed bag, whether they do or not.
Some are very quick to call meabout the allegations, others
are methodical in theirresponses and many are silent.
Many object to thoseallegations.
So it's a back and forth, it'sa conversation, it's a dialogue.
It's not, though, and shouldn'tjust be, a paper trail.
(20:39):
I try very hard to make sure Ialso call the governments, have
a good conversation, tell themI'm following up, and if I'm
unsatisfied that I'll continueto pursue the case with them,
but I have to say I receivethousands of allegation letters
per year which involve even morepeople than that.
(20:59):
So some of them are multiplecomplainants, some of them are
hundreds of complainants in asingle allegation letter, and
the resourcing and the staffingability to be able to process
them is very minuscule.
That only a very small fractionof those cases am I actually
able to pursue, and that is thatis something I've struggled
(21:21):
with in this position reallyjust this inability to be as
effective as actually one couldbe.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
Is there one case, one torture survivor, that
you've come across during yourtime as Special Rapporteur that
really stands out in your mind?
That might bring home to us whythere really does need to be a
convention.
Speaker 5 (21:44):
I have many stories, many faces, the trust of victims
and survivors, so I don't liketo single out a single person,
but I understand the need tobring this home.
(22:20):
Involved horrendous forms oftorture in the form of sexual
enslavement, but also beatings,forcing people to commit crimes,
which is also a form ofpsychological torture,
mutilations, just the mostgraphic and egregious violations
.
And I met with a range ofdifferent survivors women and
girls of different ages, whowere different ages when they
were taken, but also young menand young men who so far have
(22:45):
been kind of on the margins ofany redress or support for what
they have suffered.
These people need this support.
This framework gives them hope,it allows them to hold their
governments to account, toremind them of the standards
they've signed up to.
So you know, on all thoseoccasions it's really important
(23:07):
to have this booklet thatessentially kind of sets it out
step by step, and thatgovernments are then not able to
say to victims and survivors oh, we have no obligations or
we're doing our best.
We need more than the best tobe done, especially these days.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
So, as the convention marks its 40th anniversary, is
there any cause for celebration?
Both Alice and Gerald agree theconvention was a huge step
forward, but now they expectmore from governments and from
all of us.
Speaker 5 (23:48):
These are tremendous strides since thinking before
the Second World War about howthis was more a routine practice
.
But really it would bewonderful to see states take
their obligations seriously and,in this anniversary year, make
changes and make commitments tomake changes.
Of course, words are easy andoften spoken at the United
Nations and elsewhere, butreally the commitment is to
(24:09):
their own people and thosewithin their territories.
It's not something to be saidin the corridors of the Palais
de Nation in Geneva or in NewYork.
I want to see it said to thepeople on the street, the people
who are in detention, thepeople that come in contact and
in conflict with the law.
That would be really an amazingmomentum to take forward.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
I think what disturbs me most is ignorance and
complacency.
I think what we see is so oftenat every level, at the
government level yes, torture isbad, but that's about it and
you don't really eradicate it,you don't translate it into
political will.
And this is precisely.
I think, 40 years on, theTorture Convention is about
critical self-reflection andintrospection, but also setting
(24:55):
a policy against torture.
Torture doesn is about criticalself-reflection and
introspection, but also settinga policy against torture.
Torture doesn't appear on itsown.
Torture needs active steps ifyou really want to eradicate it.
You have to work with yourpolice, you have to enable civil
society to work, you have torecognize victims and make them
actors.
There's so much you have to doand you have to investigate
(25:16):
torture.
Many people say, well, we don'twant torture, we want to
prevent torture.
But when torture happens, veryfew states investigate and bring
it to justice and for as longas this is not done, torture
will not be eradicated.
But what disturbs me the most isreally the complacency.
We hear about torture more andmore and we don't act anymore.
(25:37):
And 40 years ago we acted whenwe heard about torture.
This is why the tortureconvention is there and we take
it for granted that it's therebut we don't mobilize in any way
our hearts, our minds, ourpolicies.
We want to unite the movementand reunite it on the 40th
anniversary of the convention,because so much more has to be
(25:59):
done to really eradicate.
We have to recognize it isstill a problem and we have to
recognize it is a problem fortorture, for individuals, for
society.
A society that tortures is asick society.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
Does anyone disagree?
I hope not.
Our societies and that meansall of us, surely should be able
to unite around a fewfundamental principles of
humanity, including an absoluteprohibition on torture.
My thanks to Alice Edwards andGerald Stabarock for their time,
(26:41):
expertise and insight.
And if you're especiallyinterested in international law
and how it can help us treateach other better, take a look
at our back catalogue, where youcan find special episodes on
the Convention Against Landmines, on enforced disappearances and
(27:04):
on the world's newest treatythe ban on nuclear weapons,
music on the world's newesttreaty the ban on nuclear
weapons, and a reminder thatnext week, on October 7th, we've
got a very special episode foryou with highlights of our
coverage over the last year onthe conflict in the Middle East.
Speaker 7 (27:27):
What we have to deal with is the immense stupidity of
the wars that currently are inplace, and here we are having to
deal with wars of a sort thatwere better found in the history
books devoted to the 20thcentury and ought not to have a
place in the 21st.
Speaker 8 (27:44):
I care about the families of the people who are
taken hostages.
I care about the civilians inIsrael who regularly have to go
in the basement, and I also careabout the Palestinians.
One does not exclude the other.
We're not doing accounting.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
We'll hear how, while the diplomats and political
leaders dither about how tobring peace, the humanitarian
agencies are facing hugechallenges and risks.
Do join us then.
That's it for this edition ofInside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Folks.
(28:23):
Thank you for listening.
Listening A reminder.
You've been listening to InsideGeneva, a Swiss Info production
.
You can email us oninsidegeneva at swissinfoch and
subscribe to us and review uswherever you get your podcasts.
(28:45):
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice
.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening you.
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
In today's programme, you're completely at the grace
of people.
Horrific things can happen toyou.
Nobody is there to help you.
Nobody is there to document.
Speaker 4 (00:32):
They beat me when they first took me.
They hung me from the ceilingfor an hour.
My legs were not touching theground.
They beat us for three dayswith water pipes.
We were bleeding.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
The General Assembly enacted the Convention against
Torture in 1984.
There are over 170 stateparties to the convention.
Speaker 5 (00:56):
One of the very interesting things about this
whole area of torture is thattorture is universally condemned
but widely practiced.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
There are so many studies out there that torture
doesn't produce security.
Torture doesn't produce theright results unless the purpose
of torture which it often is isto terrorize societies.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Fowkes Now.
Regular listeners will knowthat from time to time on this
podcast we take a deep dive intosome of the conventions and
international laws that theworld has agreed to in an
attempt, not always successful,to keep us humane and civilised.
(01:42):
Today, as you may have guessedfrom our introduction, we're
going to take a look at theConvention Against Torture with
two very knowledgeable experts.
Speaker 5 (01:52):
I'm Alice Edwards.
I'm the UN's Special Rapporteuron Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatmentor Punishment.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
I'm Gareth Starbuck.
I'm the Secretary General ofthe World Organization Against
Torture.
In our work, we try to make aworld that looks pretty broken
these days a little bit betterand to give a little bit of hope
.
Speaker 6 (02:15):
Torture is one of the most serious crimes that can be
committed against a human being.
It aims to dehumanise throughcalculated acts of cruelty, to
remove victims' dignity and toleave them powerless.
It often leaves scars for alifetime.
This is why, in 1984, theConvention Against Torture was
(02:36):
adopted.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
The Convention Against Torture is this year
marking its 40th anniversary.
Year marking its 40thanniversary.
Now, like me, some of you maybe thinking that 1984 was a
little late for this particularinternational law, especially
when the world had adopted theUniversal Declaration on Human
Rights way back in 1948, in thehope of preventing the kind of
(03:01):
horror and cruelty that tookplace during the Second World
War.
In fact, as Gerald Stabarok ofthe World Organization Against
Torture explains, the 1984convention has its roots in that
declaration of 1948.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
Of course, in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, you have, as one of thefoundations as well, an absolute
ban on torture.
So I think the UniversalDeclaration coming after the war
was quite clear that there arethings that are so abhorrent
that they are so central to whowe are as a humanity that the
(03:40):
absolute prohibition has to bepart of it.
But you're right, why did ittake them so long for a specific
and dedicated document?
Or, in other words, you wouldalso ask why was it still needed
if it was already outlawedbefore?
And I think this is somethingwe hear quite often.
We think about torture in termsof the Spanish Inquisition, and
(04:01):
I had people asking me on thestreets in Tunisia when we had a
campaign it's still there?
Yes, it is still there, and Ithink it became then clear that,
in order to eradicate, you needmuch more than just a phrase in
a declaration.
You need a movement againsttorture.
You need a clear legalframework that prevents torture
(04:23):
in the first place, that makesit explicit that you have to
prosecute those responsible fortorture in the whole chain of
command that is concerned, andto provide a really holistic
framework to go against torture.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
So, as Gerald points out, those post-World War II
hopes and promises didn'tdeliver a perfect world.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
This hallway, this place was empty.
First they slammed me againstthe wall.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Humans continued to be cruel and they continued to
torture.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
They tied my feet to my hands, which were already
handcuffed.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
But as Alice Edwards, the UN's special rapporteur on
torture, explains, there came akey moment in the 1980s when
countries emerging from cruelrepressive regimes pushed hard
for a global ban on torture.
Speaker 5 (05:27):
The convention came in in the 1980s arising out of
terrible situations in LatinAmerica, the dictatorships in
Chile and Argentina inparticular, and of course
torture and forceddisappearances and killings were
used as a matter of course tosuppress their populations and
to suppress opposition Out ofsight out of mind.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
We can easily forget those locked away from society.
Behind many closed doors, awayfrom view.
There are things that go onthat shouldn't.
Torture is one of those things.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Today, the convention has been ratified by 174 states
.
On paper, the vast majority ofcountries back it.
Alice Edwards believes thetreaty, with the key obligations
it imposes on governments, is abig step forward from the
Universal Declaration on HumanRights.
Speaker 5 (06:34):
Absolutely, and let me tell you a couple of reasons
why.
First of all, these areessentially, in international
law terms, binding standards.
It means that states consent tobe bound by them.
They've agreed to a blueprintfor the actions that they're
supposed to take.
It's very good for monitoringtheir progress against those
(06:55):
benchmarks.
And actually the convention hasa very nice kind of five, what
I would call a five-point plan,five Ps Now, maybe that is too
much UN speak, but five Ps thatset out in very easy to
understand steps of what statesare supposed to do.
I can run through those for youif you like, briefly.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
Yeah, quickly just run through them.
I mean it's a podcast, allright.
Speaker 5 (07:22):
So the first is prevention.
The overarching goal of theconvention is that states take
all measures necessary toprevent torture.
The second is the prohibitionon torture.
In other words, states aresupposed to set up a legal
framework to criminalise thecrime of torture and to ensure
(07:42):
that all of these steps areentrenched in law.
The third area is that whereacts of torture or other inhuman
treatment occur, states have anobligation to investigate and,
if there are substantiatedgrounds, to prosecute those
individuals.
The fourth P that I refer to ispunishment.
(08:02):
Persons, in order to endimpunity for these crimes, need
to be punished, and thatpunishment must fit the gravity
of the offence that they havecommitted.
And the fifth area is alsoreally important it's about
protection of witnesses andvictims, as well as
rehabilitation for victims andsurvivors.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
I'm just wondering if you're seeing another P, though
, and that is pushback.
I mean thinking, for example,about Donald Trump when he was
campaigning to be president in2016, and now he could be
president again.
He publicly said at a campaignrally that torture works.
Speaker 5 (08:40):
This question, this age-old question of does torture
work?
Is a very curious one to me,and I'll tell you why.
It's like asking does violencework?
Well, it depends on what you'retrying to achieve.
Torture is used to oppresspeople, it's used to instill
fear in people, it's used toferment hatred amongst groups
(09:04):
and it is used to hurt people.
It's used to ferment hatredamongst groups and it is used to
hurt people.
Now, if they are your objectives, then torture works very well.
I'm not someone that saystorture doesn't work in those
circumstances.
Torture has been usedthroughout the ages to do
exactly those things, but that'sprecisely why it's absolutely
prohibited in the modern era.
(09:25):
Now, the reason it's asked fortorture is because we often
think about torture being usedin the context of interrogation
or interviewing suspects or forintelligence gathering, and
that's where, actually, there'sa lot of research and evidence
to show that it doesn't work,that it's an ineffective way of
collecting evidence or securinga confession, and, of course,
(09:48):
the questions we have to askourselves is whether you can
rely on that information, allthose confessions that you
gather.
People will do almost anythingto avoid pain.
Speaker 8 (10:00):
Imitating what the guards did.
They wouldn't let me sleep,says Farid, who spent seven
years in different cages.
Speaker 9 (10:06):
Would you allow US interrogators to waterboard
terrorist prisoners in order toextract information?
Absolutely, absolutely.
You know.
I said I'd prove it immediately, but I'd make it also much
worse.
They said what do you mean?
I said I'd do much worse.
And don't tell me it doesn'twork.
Torture works okay, folksTorture.
(10:28):
You know, I have these guys.
Torture doesn't work.
Believe me, it works okay.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
But Alice and her colleagues on the UN Committee
Against Torture know all toowell that, despite widespread
support for the convention alltoo well that despite widespread
support for the conventiontorture still continues and
attitudes towards it areambivalent.
A survey carried out by the RedCross in 2020 revealed that
over a third of under 35sbelieved torture was acceptable,
(11:00):
in some cases, with an evenhigher proportion in the US and
the UK thinking torture could bejustified to get information
that might prevent, for example,a terrorist attack.
Despite that, Gerald Stabarokbelieves the convention is
hugely important.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
I think 40 years of a convention.
I'd like to start with acelebration in some way.
I think there are enormousinroads we've made in so many
places in terms of the legalframework, in terms of the
preventive aspect, that we havenow in 80 countries, mechanisms
(11:39):
that can walk into any detentionplace without prior notice,
which is a considerableachievement, but also that you
have much more organizations andcivil society who can mobilize
on the torture prohibition, thatcan engage their governments,
that works with victims tore-establish their lives in many
(12:00):
ways.
But yes, we have pushbacks andI think, especially in these
days, they're very considerablepushbacks.
You have had a similar podcastabout the universality of rights
.
We feel that this is a world ofdouble standards, which is a
poison to universality, and Ithink then we have to see that
(12:21):
torture becomes more tolerableand if we allow this to happen,
we allow the universality ofhuman rights and of our humanity
.
It's a big word, but that'swhat it is to go down as well.
In the end and this isimportant to me as well, because
we speak so sanitized veryoften about torture it sounds
(12:41):
very abstract, but just putyourself into the shoe of
somebody who's detained in oneof these places these days could
be in Gaza, and you're detained, you're completely at the grace
of people.
Horrific things can happen toyou.
Nobody's there to help you,nobody's there to document, etc.
And I think sometimes we speakabout torture without putting
(13:04):
ourselves into the shoes whatthis is.
When we see this and imaginethis, we know why it is outlawed
under any circumstances.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Let's dig a bit deeper into that, because we do
hear sometimes people caveatabout this.
They say, well, yes, it's awful, but in some cases it works
about this they said well, yes,it's awful, but in some cases it
works.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
Well, I mean, my first answer to this is we
didn't outlaw torture because itworks or not.
We didn't outlaw slaverybecause it doesn't work as an
economic model, as the specialrapporteur on torture said.
We didn't outlaw robberybecause it doesn't work, but
because it is wrong.
And I think, beyond this, ofcourse, there are all these
(13:49):
studies that it is highlyunprofessional to use torture,
that you don't yield the properresult, that people tell you
whatever they are.
But it's really not thedecisive point.
The decisive point is do wehave certain standards that
apply to everyone and anywhere?
And this is why, again, theuniversality issue is important,
because these days you have theimpression I have empathy to
(14:12):
victims, depending on who theyare and by whom they have been
victimized.
The universality of human rightsis about whoever.
It doesn't matter whetheryou're a good guy or bad guy
when it comes to torture.
It's really not the point.
It doesn't matter whether youbelong to one group or the other
.
And if we don't understand thisand the centrality of the
absolute prohibition as thebasis for what universality
(14:36):
means, I think we are in verydifficult waters.
But really it is about law, itis about standards, it is about
morals, it is about ethics.
But, yes, I mean, there are somany studies out there that
torture doesn't produce security.
Torture doesn't produce theright results unless the purpose
of torture which it often is isto terrorize societies.
(14:57):
Hundreds of prisoners wererounded up and taken to the
national stadium.
Speaker 6 (15:09):
We slept on the floor .
Speaker 4 (15:10):
It was very cold.
We had to leave a small passageso that the soldiers would come
and get us in the night to takeus to the torture and
interrogation rooms.
Sometimes some of our comradesleft and never returned.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
Well, there are governments out there who are
keen on terrorising theirpopulations in a bid to keep
them meek, biddable andbasically silent.
But most of them have actuallyratified the Convention Against
Torture.
It's Alice Edwards' job toremind them of their obligations
.
So I had another question forher.
(15:53):
You are the UN SpecialRapporteur on torture.
You deal with countries, withtheir law enforcement.
Could you give me a flavour ofthat?
Are most countries happy to seeyou, happy to take your advice,
or do you get pushback?
Or do people treat you like anuisance?
Speaker 5 (16:12):
It all depends.
To be honest.
I have a lot of goodcooperation with a wide range of
countries, including thosecountries that perhaps have a
poorer track record of torturethan others.
I also have pushback.
I also face silence.
I also face accusations ofproviding false or misleading
(16:34):
information.
So there is pushback providingfalse or misleading information
so there is pushback.
It's definitely on the rise, Iwould say, because torture is
also on the rise.
One of the very interestingthings about this whole area of
torture is that torture isuniversally condemned but widely
practiced.
(16:54):
So states are very clear thatthey condemn and object to
torture but, on the other hand,on the sides, behind closed
doors, it might in fact be awidespread practice in their
countries.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
Does that discourage you?
Speaker 5 (17:11):
I think you know the role of special rapporteur on
torture comes with a lot ofheaviness.
To be honest, there's a hugeburden of responsibility to keep
the focus on these types ofcrimes when, of course, there
are a lot of other challenges inthe world.
I take heart by the small andsteady pace of some countries
(17:38):
and a growing number that arereally are trying to do the
right thing, that are reformingtheir laws, that have learnt
from their past that torture andthe use of it only creates
divisions in society, and tomove forward in the 21st century
they need to bridge those gaps.
But of course, there's a wholelist of countries that do
(18:00):
practice torture systematically,that it is still part of their
state policy, and breaking thatcycle, breaking those mindsets,
is the work that myself and manyothers really have to do on a
daily basis.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
And there's another side to the convention support
and reparation for those whohave endured it.
Gerald Stabarok and hiscolleagues work with survivors
of torture.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
You know, many people ask me whether I'm deeply
depressed because I work on adire issue.
But it's a little bit likeasking a doctor whether he's
depressed dealing with diseases.
I see the cure and I thinkworking with survivors is very,
very, very encouraging becauseyou can see how you rebuild
lives.
Torture is not just a violationthat happens physically, with
(18:50):
the traces you have, but itstays your life, with
psychological traces inparticular, but it stays you
alive, with psychological tracesin particular.
But it is a work that globallyis done more and more to put
survivors back in their shoes,that they contribute to their
societies, that they canmaintain their families, because
torture really destroys thefabric of society as well.
But we are a civil societynetwork.
(19:11):
We work with 200 organizationsaround the world where torture
is rampant, and that we cansupport those organizations,
give them the feeling they'repart of a global struggle, not
in isolation, is tremendouslyimportant.
And what stands out to me isthese people in countries where
it is dangerous to work ontorture, where it is difficult,
(19:33):
who dedicate their life to doingthis, and this is just an
extraordinary experience ifwe're able to help them.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
The convention requires states holding a
suspected torturer to prosecuteor extradite him, and protect
and compensate torture victims.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
And on the UN side there is a perhaps lesser-known
aspect of the support theConvention can offer.
Alice Edwards doesn't justvisit countries, go into their
prisons and detention centresand scrutinise governments.
Individual survivors of torturecan bring their own complaints
(20:09):
directly to her.
So how does that work inpractice?
How do governments respond?
Speaker 5 (20:16):
It's a bit of a mixed bag, whether they do or not.
Some are very quick to call meabout the allegations, others
are methodical in theirresponses and many are silent.
Many object to thoseallegations.
So it's a back and forth, it'sa conversation, it's a dialogue.
It's not, though, and shouldn'tjust be, a paper trail.
(20:39):
I try very hard to make sure Ialso call the governments, have
a good conversation, tell themI'm following up, and if I'm
unsatisfied that I'll continueto pursue the case with them,
but I have to say I receivethousands of allegation letters
per year which involve even morepeople than that.
(20:59):
So some of them are multiplecomplainants, some of them are
hundreds of complainants in asingle allegation letter, and
the resourcing and the staffingability to be able to process
them is very minuscule.
That only a very small fractionof those cases am I actually
able to pursue, and that is thatis something I've struggled
(21:21):
with in this position reallyjust this inability to be as
effective as actually one couldbe.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
Is there one case, one torture survivor, that
you've come across during yourtime as Special Rapporteur that
really stands out in your mind?
That might bring home to us whythere really does need to be a
convention.
Speaker 5 (21:44):
I have many stories, many faces, the trust of victims
and survivors, so I don't liketo single out a single person,
but I understand the need tobring this home.
(22:20):
Involved horrendous forms oftorture in the form of sexual
enslavement, but also beatings,forcing people to commit crimes,
which is also a form ofpsychological torture,
mutilations, just the mostgraphic and egregious violations
.
And I met with a range ofdifferent survivors women and
girls of different ages, whowere different ages when they
were taken, but also young menand young men who so far have
(22:45):
been kind of on the margins ofany redress or support for what
they have suffered.
These people need this support.
This framework gives them hope,it allows them to hold their
governments to account, toremind them of the standards
they've signed up to.
So you know, on all thoseoccasions it's really important
(23:07):
to have this booklet thatessentially kind of sets it out
step by step, and thatgovernments are then not able to
say to victims and survivors oh, we have no obligations or
we're doing our best.
We need more than the best tobe done, especially these days.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
So, as the convention marks its 40th anniversary, is
there any cause for celebration?
Both Alice and Gerald agree theconvention was a huge step
forward, but now they expectmore from governments and from
all of us.
Speaker 5 (23:48):
These are tremendous strides since thinking before
the Second World War about howthis was more a routine practice
.
But really it would bewonderful to see states take
their obligations seriously and,in this anniversary year, make
changes and make commitments tomake changes.
Of course, words are easy andoften spoken at the United
Nations and elsewhere, butreally the commitment is to
(24:09):
their own people and thosewithin their territories.
It's not something to be saidin the corridors of the Palais
de Nation in Geneva or in NewYork.
I want to see it said to thepeople on the street, the people
who are in detention, thepeople that come in contact and
in conflict with the law.
That would be really an amazingmomentum to take forward.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
I think what disturbs me most is ignorance and
complacency.
I think what we see is so oftenat every level, at the
government level yes, torture isbad, but that's about it and
you don't really eradicate it,you don't translate it into
political will.
And this is precisely.
I think, 40 years on, theTorture Convention is about
critical self-reflection andintrospection, but also setting
(24:55):
a policy against torture.
Torture doesn is about criticalself-reflection and
introspection, but also settinga policy against torture.
Torture doesn't appear on itsown.
Torture needs active steps ifyou really want to eradicate it.
You have to work with yourpolice, you have to enable civil
society to work, you have torecognize victims and make them
actors.
There's so much you have to doand you have to investigate
(25:16):
torture.
Many people say, well, we don'twant torture, we want to
prevent torture.
But when torture happens, veryfew states investigate and bring
it to justice and for as longas this is not done, torture
will not be eradicated.
But what disturbs me the most isreally the complacency.
We hear about torture more andmore and we don't act anymore.
(25:37):
And 40 years ago we acted whenwe heard about torture.
This is why the tortureconvention is there and we take
it for granted that it's therebut we don't mobilize in any way
our hearts, our minds, ourpolicies.
We want to unite the movementand reunite it on the 40th
anniversary of the convention,because so much more has to be
(25:59):
done to really eradicate.
We have to recognize it isstill a problem and we have to
recognize it is a problem fortorture, for individuals, for
society.
A society that tortures is asick society.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
Does anyone disagree?
I hope not.
Our societies and that meansall of us, surely should be able
to unite around a fewfundamental principles of
humanity, including an absoluteprohibition on torture.
My thanks to Alice Edwards andGerald Stabarock for their time,
(26:41):
expertise and insight.
And if you're especiallyinterested in international law
and how it can help us treateach other better, take a look
at our back catalogue, where youcan find special episodes on
the Convention Against Landmines, on enforced disappearances and
(27:04):
on the world's newest treatythe ban on nuclear weapons,
music on the world's newesttreaty the ban on nuclear
weapons, and a reminder thatnext week, on October 7th, we've
got a very special episode foryou with highlights of our
coverage over the last year onthe conflict in the Middle East.
Speaker 7 (27:27):
What we have to deal with is the immense stupidity of
the wars that currently are inplace, and here we are having to
deal with wars of a sort thatwere better found in the history
books devoted to the 20thcentury and ought not to have a
place in the 21st.
Speaker 8 (27:44):
I care about the families of the people who are
taken hostages.
I care about the civilians inIsrael who regularly have to go
in the basement, and I also careabout the Palestinians.
One does not exclude the other.
We're not doing accounting.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
We'll hear how, while the diplomats and political
leaders dither about how tobring peace, the humanitarian
agencies are facing hugechallenges and risks.
Do join us then.
That's it for this edition ofInside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Folks.
(28:23):
Thank you for listening.
Listening A reminder.
You've been listening to InsideGeneva, a Swiss Info production
.
You can email us oninsidegeneva at swissinfoch and
subscribe to us and review uswherever you get your podcasts.
(28:45):
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice
.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening you.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com