Applying the Definition of Torture to the Acts of Non-State Actors: The Case of Trafficking in Human Beings

Abstract

The question of whether the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment extends to the acts of non-state actors continues to reflect a contentious issue in international human rights law. Through one of the most recent and under-analyzed manifestations of the debate, this article explores the extent to which the prohibition applies to trafficking in human beings. In doing so, it provides an analysis of the inherent limitations of the prohibition as applied to the acts of non-state actors, as well as suggesting possibilities for extension of the scope of the prohibition through the principle of due diligence. By defining the parameters in this way, this article submits that victims will receive more concrete protection, as opposed to assertions that trafficking constitutes torture on the basis of the severity of the act and attraction to the special stigma of the label alone.

Bound By Silence: Psychological Effects of the Traditional Oath Ceremony Used in the Sex Trafficking of Nigerian Women and Girls

“…"Since its adoption, the Convention [Against Torture] has engendered substantial criticism for its perceived focus on the actions of public officials or persons acting in an official capacity, to the exclusion of the commission of similar acts by non-State actors, such as armed groups, corporations, and other private individuals" (McGregor, 2014). To delineate that the crime of torture has taken place only if it is executed by State actors denies an adequate legal framework for victims who have suffered under the control, force, and threat of non-State actors.…”

“…The CAT would only offer legal protection in the event of direct involvement by a State official in a human trafficking incident. It is necessary then to focus on the State's due diligence in protecting victims from torture to determine if the State has failed to protect citizens, and is thus complicit in allowing torture to occur (McGregor, 2014). This analysis focuses on the effects of the oath ceremony itself and the psychological and physical torture suffered by victims as a result of being bound by the oath, thus subjected to further torture as sexual slaves.…”

Estimating the Costs of Torture: Challenges and Opportunities

“…Some experts consider that this definition includes the following four key elements that need to be questioned: (i) intentional infliction, (ii) severe pain or suffering, (iii) for enumerated purposes; (iv) by someone acting on behalf of a state [25,26]. A fifth element could be added and questioned, i.e.…”