Use Of Torture By Police In Extracting Confessions
Overview
Torture and coercion to extract confessions violate fundamental human rights, including protections against self-incrimination, the right to a fair trial, and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
International law, including the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), prohibits torture explicitly.
Many countries’ constitutions and criminal laws disallow confessions obtained by torture as evidence in court.
Courts often face the challenge of balancing the need for confessions in prosecution against the rights of defendants and the integrity of the justice system.
Why Torture-Extracted Confessions Are Problematic
Reliability: Torture often produces false or unreliable confessions.
Due Process Violation: Using such confessions violates procedural fairness.
Legal Consequences: Evidence obtained under torture can be excluded; sometimes entire convictions are overturned.
Moral and Ethical Issues: Torture is universally condemned as a human rights abuse.
Landmark Cases Involving Torture and Confession
Case 1: Brown v. Mississippi (1936) — United States
Facts: Defendants were beaten by police until they confessed to murder.
Court Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that confessions extracted by physical torture violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Impact: Confessions obtained by torture are inadmissible in court; established a key precedent in U.S. law.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that constitutional protections include protection against forced confessions.
Case 2: A and Others v. United Kingdom (2009) — European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Facts: Applicants claimed confessions were obtained under torture during detention by UK forces in Iraq.
Court Decision: The ECHR held that torture-tainted evidence violates Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 6 (right to fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Impact: Evidence obtained by torture is inadmissible and taints the fairness of the entire trial.
Significance: Affirmed international human rights standards against torture in criminal proceedings.
Case 3: Mukong v. Cameroon (1994) — UN Human Rights Committee
Facts: The petitioner alleged torture and coerced confession by police.
Committee Ruling: Confirmed that torture and use of such confessions violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Impact: Urged states to prohibit torture and exclude such evidence.
Significance: Reinforced the global commitment to exclude torture evidence and protect detainees’ rights.
Case 4: The Detainee Abuse Cases in Afghanistan (2003-2012)
Facts: Allegations of torture and abuse by U.S. and Afghan forces during interrogations.
Legal Response: Courts and military commissions increasingly rejected confessions obtained under torture or coercion.
Impact: Policies revised to ban harsh interrogation methods.
Significance: Highlighted the importance of lawful interrogation and exclusion of tainted confessions even in counterterrorism contexts.
Case 5: R v. Oickle (2000) — Canada
Facts: Defendant claimed confession was obtained through psychological pressure amounting to torture.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that confessions must be voluntary; any threat, oppression, or inducement undermines voluntariness.
Impact: Established a legal test for voluntariness focusing on the presence or absence of coercion.
Significance: Highlighted that psychological coercion is equivalent to physical torture in invalidating confessions.
Case 6: Afghanistan – Torture Allegations in Criminal Trials (Post-2001)
Facts: Various cases where defendants claimed police torture to extract confessions.
Judicial Approach: Courts increasingly required independent evidence beyond confessions.
Outcome: Some cases resulted in retrials or acquittals due to unreliable confession evidence.
Significance: Marked gradual judicial awareness and caution in accepting confession evidence, aligned with human rights obligations.
Case 7: Nigeria – The Ogoni 9 Trial (1995)
Facts: Activists claimed torture and forced confessions during military trial.
Response: International pressure and human rights groups exposed abuses.
Impact: Highlighted international concern about torture in criminal justice.
Significance: Helped spur reforms and increased scrutiny on interrogation practices.
Summary Table of Key Principles and Cases
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Issue | Court Finding/Principle | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brown v. Mississippi | USA (Supreme Court) | Physical torture confessions | Violates due process; inadmissible evidence | Foundation for U.S. anti-torture law |
| A and Others v. UK (ECHR) | Europe | Torture-tainted evidence | Violates Articles 3 & 6 of ECHR | Reinforces prohibition on torture |
| Mukong v. Cameroon (UN HRC) | International | Torture and coerced confession | Violates ICCPR; states must exclude such evidence | Global human rights affirmation |
| Detainee Abuse Cases (Afghanistan) | Afghanistan/US | Torture in counterterrorism | Confessions excluded; harsher interrogation banned | Limits on torture in security context |
| R v. Oickle | Canada | Psychological coercion | Confession must be voluntary to be admissible | Psychological coercion = torture |
| Afghanistan Post-2001 Cases | Afghanistan | Police torture claims | Courts increasingly reject coerced confessions | Growing judicial protection |
| Ogoni 9 Trial | Nigeria | Military torture and forced confessions | International scrutiny led to reforms | Human rights impact on justice |
Legal and Ethical Takeaways
Confessions obtained by torture or coercion are inadmissible.
Courts worldwide stress voluntariness as a prerequisite for confession admissibility.
International human rights law sets an absolute prohibition on torture.
Legal reforms increasingly require independent corroboration of confession evidence.
Use of torture undermines the credibility and fairness of the justice system.
Protection against torture must be enforced at all stages — arrest, detention, trial.
RELATED Blog
0 comments