Is the Prohibition Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment Absolute in International Human Rights Law? A Reply to Steven Greer

Abstract

In a recent article, Steven Greer questions whether the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is really 'absolute' in international human rights law, and argues that it is not. In this piece, I consider Greer's arguments against the absolute character of the prohibition at law, and find them wanting. In doing so, I clarify what the legal prohibition's absolute character entails, and what it does not, addressing misconceptions, and revisit the distinction between negative and positive obligations in human rights law. In responding to Greer's arguments, conceptual clarifications are offered which carry significant implications in the context of counter-terrorism and human rights law more widely. At the same time, I underline that the absolute character of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in human rights law does not close off critical engagement with the issue of individual (criminal) culpability vis-à-vis the prohibition at human rights law, or with the meaning of the terms torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

Negative Human Rights as a Basis for Long-term AI Safety and Regulation

“…10 Absolute rights, on the other hand, cannot be restricted. As a rather rare exception, under international (Mavronicola, 2017) and European human rights law (Chahal v UK, 1996), the right not to be tortured always takes precedence in the adjudication and cannot be weighed against other rights or public interests. Given that unconditional application, it is a legal rule and also an absolute right.…”

Registering Time in Recognising Torturous Harm: Figuring the Single, Plural and Historical in Torture's Adjudication

“…This is also coupled up with the proximity (or the physical possibility of the authorities to act to achieve the threatened consequences). This jurisprudence has recently been drawn on by Natasa Mavronicola (2022) for recognising the anticipated harms of climate change. Future-oriented harms are also implicated in the debates over life imprisonment without a possibility of parole being characterised as defeating ‘hope’ (ECtHR, 2013c).…”

Implementation of Chemical Castration Punishment for Sexual Violence Against Children Perpetrator

“…So, with the above legal basis, human rights activists conclude that this punishment is not appropriate to be applied. 36 The Indonesian Doctors Association refused to serve as the executor of this sentence because they considered that if they became the executor, it would be tantamount to abusing their position and violating their oath of office. Harkristuti Harkrisnowo is of the opinion that it is feared that one day the Implementation of this punishment will become a boomerang due to mistargeting, he argues that in general, perpetrators of sexual violence are considered to have high sexual desire or abnormal sex, but not all perpetrators of sexual violence have abnormal sex.…”