Torture And Inhuman Treatment During War
🔴 What is Torture and Inhuman Treatment During War?
Definitions:
Torture: The intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering for purposes such as obtaining information, punishment, intimidation, or coercion.
Inhuman Treatment: Treatment causing serious physical or mental suffering that does not reach the threshold of torture but still violates human dignity.
Degrading Treatment: Acts that humiliate or debase a person beyond what is reasonably necessary for security or discipline.
Legal Provisions:
Geneva Conventions (1949):
Common Article 3 prohibits “violence to life and person,” including “cruel treatment and torture.”
GC I–IV, Article 147: Torture and inhuman treatment are grave breaches.
Additional Protocols I and II (1977):
Further elaborate on the protection of civilians and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight).
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC):
Torture and inhuman treatment are listed as war crimes (Art. 8) and crimes against humanity (Art. 7) when committed systematically.
🔍 Key Case Law on Torture and Inhuman Treatment During War
1. Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu (ICTR, 1998)
Court:
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
Summary:
Jean-Paul Akayesu, a mayor in Rwanda, was tried for his role in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. The case involved systematic attacks on the Tutsi population, including sexual violence and physical torture.
Key Points:
The tribunal established that rape and sexual violence can constitute acts of torture and inhuman treatment, especially when done systematically.
It broadened the legal understanding of torture to include mental suffering and psychological trauma, especially from public rapes and forced nudity.
Legal Impact:
First case where an international tribunal held an individual criminally responsible for rape as a crime against humanity and as a form of torture.
2. Prosecutor v. Delalić et al. (Čelebići case, ICTY, 1998)
Court:
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
Summary:
Four Bosnian Muslim commanders were charged with war crimes committed against Bosnian Serb detainees in the Čelebići prison camp during the Bosnian War (1992–1995).
Key Findings:
Detainees were beaten, tortured, raped, and subjected to degrading treatment.
Some were kept in inhumane conditions, denied food, medical care, and were physically abused.
Legal Principles Established:
The case clearly defined torture under international law as requiring:
Intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering.
Involvement of a public official or someone acting in an official capacity.
Found that command responsibility applied — superiors could be held liable for the actions of their subordinates.
3. Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija (ICTY, 1998)
Court:
ICTY
Summary:
Anto Furundžija, a commander of a Croatian Defence Council unit, was charged with torture and inhuman treatment during interrogations of Bosnian Muslim civilians.
Key Facts:
Furundžija was present during the sexual assault and torture of a female detainee, and did nothing to stop it.
He also conducted brutal interrogations involving beatings.
Legal Significance:
Presence and encouragement during acts of torture constituted aiding and abetting torture.
The case expanded the definition of torture beyond physical acts to include mental suffering.
Reinforced that individual criminal responsibility extends to those who facilitate or permit torture.
4. Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić (ICTY, 2016)
Court:
ICTY
Summary:
Karadžić, the former president of Republika Srpska (Bosnian Serb entity), was found guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide during the Bosnian War.
Specific Acts of Torture:
Widespread torture of Bosnian Muslims and Croats in detention camps.
Inhumane living conditions, beatings, and psychological torture.
Key Points:
Systematic torture in detention facilities was part of a broader ethnic cleansing campaign.
As a senior political leader, Karadžić was held responsible for planning and orchestrating the policies that led to these abuses.
Outcome:
Sentenced to life imprisonment.
Reinforced the idea that political leaders can be held liable for torture and inhuman treatment during conflict.
5. Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal (U.S. Military Personnel, 2003–2004)
Jurisdiction:
U.S. Military Courts, and international scrutiny under the Geneva Conventions
Summary:
During the Iraq War, photos emerged showing U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison.
Acts Involved:
Physical beatings, electric shocks, sexual humiliation, forced nudity, mock executions, and use of dogs to terrorize detainees.
Many detainees were innocent civilians.
Legal Outcome:
Several low-level soldiers were court-martialed and convicted, including:
Charles Graner – 10 years imprisonment
Lynndie England – 3 years imprisonment
No senior military or political officials were held criminally accountable.
Significance:
Highlighted the application of Geneva Conventions to occupation forces.
Sparked international outrage and debates about command responsibility, torture, and U.S. compliance with international law.
Served as a reference point in discussions about state-sponsored torture.
⚖️ Key Legal Principles Across Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Command Responsibility | Superiors can be held liable for torture committed by subordinates if they knew or should have known and failed to prevent or punish. |
| Non-Derogability | Torture is prohibited absolutely, even during war or public emergency. |
| Individual Criminal Responsibility | Individuals, regardless of rank, can be held criminally liable. |
| Customary International Law | Prohibition of torture is binding on all states, even those not party to specific treaties. |
📌 Conclusion
Torture and inhuman treatment during war are grave breaches of international law and human rights. The cases discussed demonstrate how international courts have interpreted and enforced the prohibition on torture. They also illustrate evolving standards of accountability, the role of command responsibility, and the enduring principle that no one is above the law, even during armed conflict.
RELATED Blog
0 comments