Obligations of States Regarding Acts of Torture Conducted by Non-State Actors

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Prof of College of Farabi , University of Tehran

2 International Law Dept. Faculty of Law, College of Fararbi. University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

The historical prevalence of torture, whether perpetrated by governments to extract confessions from the accused or by private individuals for various purposes unrelated to confessions, spans human history. For a considerable time, torture was considered a legitimate means of discerning truth from falsehood and distinguishing right from wrong. However, in the 19th century, attitudes began to shift, and international efforts emerged to address the issue. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the Protocols of 1977 prohibited torture. Furthermore, the United Nations General Assembly passed several resolutions between 1973 and 1976, condemning torture.
The prohibition of torture is now recognized as a peremptory norm of international law (Jus Cogens), meaning it is non-derogable and universally applicable at all times, including during internal and international conflicts and extraordinary public situations. Currently, international rules designate torture as both a war crime and a crime against humanity.
Despite these prohibitions, human rights documents typically associate torture with actions committed by government agents with the intention of obtaining confessions. This approach excludes the possibility of torture by private individuals. Some argue that national criminal justice systems can address such private acts of torture under other criminal headings, such as domestic violence or attempted murder.
This article explores whether states can be held responsible for actions carried out by individuals and private institutions. The analysis is based on the review of international documents and the opinions of human rights courts, particularly the European Court of Human Rights.
A key distinction arises in evaluating this crime in the context of humanitarian law and human rights law. In humanitarian law, the main objective is to protect victims and reduce the suffering caused by war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, with the emergence of non-state combatant entities and non-international armed conflicts, certain war criminals remain immune from punishment due to the requirement of government involvement or intent to obtain information or confessions.
On the other hand, in human rights law, any abusive behavior occurring in the private sphere of individuals, even if not strictly defined as torture, is considered cruel, inhumane, and depraved conduct. Regional human rights courts, including the European Court of Human Rights, hold states responsible for protecting individuals from abuses committed by private actors.
The international responsibility of states lies not in the direct attribution of actions by private individuals but in their failure to enact legislative, executive, and judicial measures to prevent and punish such acts. States are obligated to uphold human rights by adopting preventive and punitive measures even in relations between private individuals. This approach reflects the theory of horizontal effect, wherein human rights principles apply not only to the relationship between the individual and the state but also to interactions between private individuals. Consequently, states are responsible for safeguarding human rights in both scenarios.
To overcome challenges in regulating acts of torture by non-state actors, states must recognize new entry barriers and factors unique to digital platforms. Measuring market power in digital platforms should consider indicators such as the number of users, traffic volume, time spent on the platform, and number of visits. Additionally, market definition should be approached by identifying non-linear value chains and determining the correlation of platform components to specific services. By employing new criteria and embracing the complexities of digital platforms, states can effectively fulfill their obligations and uphold human rights principles in the evolving landscape of technology.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

 
Akandji-kombe, J. (2007). Positive Obligations under European Convention on Human Rights: A guide to the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Handbooks, No. 7, Belgium: Council of Europe.
APT and CEJIL (2008). Torture in International Law, a Guide to Jurisprudence, Geneva: Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT) and Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL).
Beigzade, E. (2006). Mechanism of Prevention of Torture and Unjust, Non-human and Humiliating Punishments or Behaviors in the Protocol of 2002 A.D, Criminal Law Doctrines, 2(19), 47-62 [In Persian].
Cassese, A. (2014). The Role of Force in International Relations, Translated by Morteza Kalantarian, Tehran: Agaha Publications [In Persian].
Dorman, K. (2002). Elements of War Crimes under Statute of International Criminal Court, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Henkaerts, J. & Doswald Beck, L. (2009). Customary International Human Rights Law (Volume 1: Rules), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kenny. C. (2017). Prosecuting Crimes of International Concern: Islamic State at the ICC?, Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, Vol. 33 (84), 140-145. DOI: 10.5334/ujiel.364
Mir Mohammad Sadeghi, H. (2014). International Criminal Law, Tehran: Mizan Publication [In Persian].
Niknafs, M. (2005). The Concept of Torture: Unique or Different Standard (From the International Law’s Point of View), International Law Review, 22(33), 189-230 [In Persian]. DOI:10.22066/CILAMAG.2005.17976  
Poorbafrani, H. &  Rahim, R. (2016). A Comparative Study about Torture in Iranian Laws and the United Nations Convention against Torture, The Judiciary Law Journal, 80 (93), 37-60. [In Persian]  DOI:10.22106/JLJ.2016.19858
Quince Hopkins, C. (1998). Domestic Violence as Torture: Possibilities and Limits of the Law in Combating the Psychological Harm and Patterned Nature of Domestic Violence. A Thesis Submitted to the Stanford Program in International Legal Studies, for the Degree of Juridical Sciences Master, the Stanford Law School, Stanford University.
Rangebarian, A. (2005). The Place of the Rule of Prohibition of Torture in Contemporary International Law, Law, and Political Sciences, 70 (845), 147-184 [In Persian].
Reidy, A. (2003). The Prohibition of Torture: A Guide to the Implementation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Handbooks, No. 6, Belgium: Council of Europe.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Advancement of Women (2012). Handbook for Legislation on Violence against Women, New York: United Nations Publications.
Van Dijk, P. & Van Hoof, G. J. H. (1998). Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Hauge: Kluwer Law International.
Vijeh, M. (2008). The Concept of Positive Obligations in the European Court of Human Rights Practice, Journal of Theology and Law, 4(13), 109-130 [In Persian].
Wallace, R & Olga Martin, O. (2013). International Law, Translated by Seyyed Ghasem Zamani. Mahnaz Bahramlou, Tehran: Shahr Danesh Institute of Legal Studies and Research [In Persian].
 
- Judicial Cases
A v UK, No. 25599/94, Rep. 1996-VI, Judgment of 23 September 1998.
Aksoy v. Turkey.
Ali and Ayşe Duran v. Turkey, No. 42942/02, 8 April 2008.
Caeser v. Trinidad and Tobago, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C No. 123, March 11, 2005.
Campbell and Cosans v. UK, Judgment of 25 Feb 1982.
Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993.
E.M. v. Romania - 43994/05, Judgment 30.10.2012 [Section III].
Eremia and Others v. The Republic of Moldova, Application No. 3664/11, Judgment of May 2013.
General Court Martial Orders No. 607, The Court Martial of Henry Wirz, Washington, November 6, 1865.
H.L.R. v France, No. 24573/94, Rep. 1997-III, Judgment of 29 April 1997.
Hass v. Switzerland Judgment of 20 January 2011.
ICTY, Judgment, The Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić and Others, IT-9621-T, Judgment of 6 November 1998.
ICTY. Judgment. The Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac and Others, IT-96-23 and IT-96-23/I-T.
ICTY; Judgment, The Prosecutor v. Anto Frondzija, IT-95-17/I-T
Ireland v. uk.
Loizidous v. Turkey, 23 March 1995, Series A, No. 310.
M.G. v. Turkey, Application No. 646/10, Judgment of March 2016.
Mapiripán Massacre vs Colombia, Series C No. 122, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACrtHR), 15 September 2005.
Opuz v. Turkey. Judgment of 9 June 2009.
Pretty v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 29 April 2002.
Pueblo Bello Massacre v Colombia, IACHR (Series C) No. 140, judgement of 31 January 2006.
Rumor v. Italy, Application No. 72964/10, Judgment of May 2014.
Servellon-Garcia v Honduras, Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C, No. 152.
Talpis v. Italy, Application Number 41237/14, Judgment of 21 March 2017.
 The Einsatzgruppen Trial (Officially, The United States of America vs. Otto Ohlendorf, et al.), Military Tribunal II, Case No. 9.
Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, Series A, No. 26.
United States v. William L. Calley Jr, United States Court of Military Appeals, United States, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 534 / 26.875, 21 December 1973.
Velasquez Rodriguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (Ser. C) No. 4 (1988).
Z and Others v UK, No. 29392/95, ECHR 2001-V, Judgement of 10 May 2001.
Mouvement Burkinabe des Droits de l’Homme et des Peoples v. Burkina Faso, Communication No. 204/79, 7 May 2001
Journal of Legal Studies
Volume 15, Issue 3 - Serial Number 49
October 2023
Pages 155-186

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics