Inside Geneva
Inside Geneva is a podcast about global politics, humanitarian issues, and international aid, hosted by journalist Imogen Foulkes. It is produced by SWI swissinfo.ch, a multilingual international public service media company from Switzerland.
Inside Geneva
Forty years of the convention against torture: are we honouring it?
For 40 years, there has been an absolute ban on torture. But it still happens…
“Horrific things can happen to you. Nobody is there to help you. Nobody is there to document it, etc. And I think sometimes we speak about torture without putting ourselves in the shoes of what this is,” says Gerald Staberock from the World Organisation Against Torture.
On our Inside Geneva podcast this week, host Imogen Foulkes finds out how the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment came about.
“The convention came in the 1980s, arising out of terrible situations in Latin America, the dictatorships in Chile and Argentina in particular. And of course, torture, enforced disappearances, and killings were used as a matter of course to suppress their populations and to suppress opposition,” explains Alice Edwards, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.
Today, some say torture might be justified in certain circumstances.
“We didn’t outlaw torture because it works or not. We didn’t outlaw slavery because it doesn’t work. We didn’t outlaw robbery because it doesn’t work, but because it is wrong,” says Staberock.
As of today, 174 states have ratified the convention…but are they honouring it?
“There is pushback, it’s definitely on the rise I would say because torture is also on the rise. Torture is universally condemned but widely practised,” continues Edwards.
How should we mark the 40th anniversary?
“So much more has to be done to really eradicate torture. We have to recognise that it is still a problem, and we have to recognise it as a problem. For a torturer, for individuals, for society. A society that tortures is a sick society,” says Staberock.
Join host Imogen Foulkes on Inside Geneva.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
This is Inside Geneva. I'm your host, imogen Foulkes, and this is a production from Swissinfo, the international public media company of Switzerland.
Speaker 3:In today's programme, you're completely at the grace of people. Horrific things can happen to you. Nobody is there to help you. Nobody is there to document.
Speaker 4:They beat me when they first took me. They hung me from the ceiling for an hour. My legs were not touching the ground. They beat us for three days with water pipes. We were bleeding.
Speaker 1:The General Assembly enacted the Convention against Torture in 1984. There are over 170 state parties to the convention.
Speaker 5:One of the very interesting things about this whole area of torture is that torture is universally condemned but widely practiced.
Speaker 3:There are so many studies out there that torture doesn't produce security. Torture doesn't produce the right results unless the purpose of torture which it often is is to terrorize societies.
Speaker 2:Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva. I'm Imogen Fowkes Now. Regular listeners will know that from time to time on this podcast we take a deep dive into some of the conventions and international laws that the world has agreed to in an attempt, not always successful, to keep us humane and civilised. Today, as you may have guessed from our introduction, we're going to take a look at the Convention Against Torture with two very knowledgeable experts.
Speaker 5:I'm Alice Edwards. I'm the UN's Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Speaker 3:I'm Gareth Starbuck. I'm the Secretary General of the World Organization Against Torture. In our work, we try to make a world that looks pretty broken these days a little bit better and to give a little bit of hope.
Speaker 6:Torture is one of the most serious crimes that can be committed against a human being. It aims to dehumanise through calculated acts of cruelty, to remove victims' dignity and to leave them powerless. It often leaves scars for a lifetime. This is why, in 1984, the Convention Against Torture was adopted.
Speaker 2:The Convention Against Torture is this year marking its 40th anniversary. Year marking its 40th anniversary. Now, like me, some of you may be thinking that 1984 was a little late for this particular international law, especially when the world had adopted the Universal Declaration on Human Rights way back in 1948, in the hope of preventing the kind of horror and cruelty that took place during the Second World War. In fact, as Gerald Stabarok of the World Organization Against Torture explains, the 1984 convention has its roots in that declaration of 1948.
Speaker 3:Of course, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you have, as one of the foundations as well, an absolute ban on torture. So I think the Universal Declaration coming after the war was quite clear that there are things that are so abhorrent that they are so central to who we are as a humanity that the absolute prohibition has to be part of it. But you're right, why did it take them so long for a specific and dedicated document? Or, in other words, you would also ask why was it still needed if it was already outlawed before? And I think this is something we hear quite often.
Speaker 3:We think about torture in terms of the Spanish Inquisition, and I had people asking me on the streets in Tunisia when we had a campaign it's still there? Yes, it is still there, and I think it became then clear that, in order to eradicate, you need much more than just a phrase in a declaration. You need a movement against torture. You need a clear legal framework that prevents torture in the first place, that makes it explicit that you have to prosecute those responsible for torture in the whole chain of command that is concerned, and to provide a really holistic framework to go against torture.
Speaker 2:So, as Gerald points out, those post-World War II hopes and promises didn't deliver a perfect world.
Speaker 1:This hallway, this place was empty. First they slammed me against the wall.
Speaker 2:Humans continued to be cruel and they continued to torture.
Speaker 1:They tied my feet to my hands, which were already handcuffed.
Speaker 2:But as Alice Edwards, the UN's special rapporteur on torture, explains, there came a key moment in the 1980s when countries emerging from cruel repressive regimes pushed hard for a global ban on torture.
Speaker 5:The convention came in in the 1980s arising out of terrible situations in Latin America, the dictatorships in Chile and Argentina in particular, and of course torture and forced disappearances and killings were used as a matter of course to suppress their populations and to suppress opposition Out of sight out of mind.
Speaker 1:We can easily forget those locked away from society. Behind many closed doors, away from view. There are things that go on that shouldn't. Torture is one of those things.
Speaker 2:Today, the convention has been ratified by 174 states. On paper, the vast majority of countries back it. Alice Edwards believes the treaty, with the key obligations it imposes on governments, is a big step forward from the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
Speaker 5:Absolutely, and let me tell you a couple of reasons why. First of all, these are essentially, in international law terms, binding standards. It means that states consent to be bound by them. They've agreed to a blueprint for the actions that they're supposed to take. It's very good for monitoring their progress against those benchmarks. And actually the convention has a very nice kind of five, what I would call a five-point plan, five Ps Now, maybe that is too much UN speak, but five Ps that set out in very easy to understand steps of what states are supposed to do. I can run through those for you if you like, briefly.
Speaker 2:Yeah, quickly just run through them. I mean it's a podcast, all right.
Speaker 5:So the first is prevention. The overarching goal of the convention is that states take all measures necessary to prevent torture. The second is the prohibition on torture. In other words, states are supposed to set up a legal framework to criminalise the crime of torture and to ensure that all of these steps are entrenched in law. The third area is that where acts of torture or other inhuman treatment occur, states have an obligation to investigate and, if there are substantiated grounds, to prosecute those individuals. The fourth P that I refer to is punishment. Persons, in order to end impunity for these crimes, need to be punished, and that punishment must fit the gravity of the offence that they have committed. And the fifth area is also really important it's about protection of witnesses and victims, as well as rehabilitation for victims and survivors.
Speaker 2:I'm just wondering if you're seeing another P, though, and that is pushback. I mean thinking, for example, about Donald Trump when he was campaigning to be president in 2016, and now he could be president again. He publicly said at a campaign rally that torture works.
Speaker 5:This question, this age-old question of does torture work? Is a very curious one to me, and I'll tell you why. It's like asking does violence work? Well, it depends on what you're trying to achieve. Torture is used to oppress people, it's used to instill fear in people, it's used to ferment hatred amongst groups and it is used to hurt people. It's used to ferment hatred amongst groups and it is used to hurt people.
Speaker 5:Now, if they are your objectives, then torture works very well. I'm not someone that says torture doesn't work in those circumstances. Torture has been used throughout the ages to do exactly those things, but that's precisely why it's absolutely prohibited in the modern era. Now, the reason it's asked for torture is because we often think about torture being used in the context of interrogation or interviewing suspects or for intelligence gathering, and that's where, actually, there's a lot of research and evidence to show that it doesn't work, that it's an ineffective way of collecting evidence or securing a confession, and, of course, the questions we have to ask ourselves is whether you can rely on that information, all those confessions that you gather. People will do almost anything to avoid pain.
Speaker 8:Imitating what the guards did. They wouldn't let me sleep, says Farid, who spent seven years in different cages.
Speaker 9:Would you allow US interrogators to waterboard terrorist prisoners in order to extract information? Absolutely, absolutely. You know. I said I'd prove it immediately, but I'd make it also much worse. They said what do you mean? I said I'd do much worse. And don't tell me it doesn't work. Torture works okay, folks Torture. You know, I have these guys. Torture doesn't work. Believe me, it works okay.
Speaker 2:But Alice and her colleagues on the UN Committee Against Torture know all too well that, despite widespread support for the convention all too well that despite widespread support for the convention torture still continues and attitudes towards it are ambivalent. A survey carried out by the Red Cross in 2020 revealed that over a third of under 35s believed torture was acceptable, in some cases, with an even higher proportion in the US and the UK thinking torture could be justified to get information that might prevent, for example, a terrorist attack. Despite that, Gerald Stabarok believes the convention is hugely important.
Speaker 3:I think 40 years of a convention. I'd like to start with a celebration in some way. I think there are enormous inroads we've made in so many places in terms of the legal framework, in terms of the preventive aspect, that we have now in 80 countries, mechanisms that can walk into any detention place without prior notice, which is a considerable achievement, but also that you have much more organizations and civil society who can mobilize on the torture prohibition, that can engage their governments, that works with victims to re-establish their lives in many ways. But yes, we have pushbacks and I think, especially in these days, they're very considerable pushbacks.
Speaker 3:You have had a similar podcast about the universality of rights. We feel that this is a world of double standards, which is a poison to universality, and I think then we have to see that torture becomes more tolerable and if we allow this to happen, we allow the universality of human rights and of our humanity. It's a big word, but that's what it is to go down as well. In the end and this is important to me as well, because we speak so sanitized very often about torture it sounds very abstract, but just put yourself into the shoe of somebody who's detained in one of these places these days could be in Gaza, and you're detained, you're completely at the grace of people. Horrific things can happen to you. Nobody's there to help you, nobody's there to document, etc. And I think sometimes we speak about torture without putting ourselves into the shoes what this is. When we see this and imagine this, we know why it is outlawed under any circumstances.
Speaker 2:Let's dig a bit deeper into that, because we do hear sometimes people caveat about this. They say, well, yes, it's awful, but in some cases it works about this they said well, yes, it's awful, but in some cases it works.
Speaker 3:Well, I mean, my first answer to this is we didn't outlaw torture because it works or not. We didn't outlaw slavery because it doesn't work as an economic model, as the special rapporteur on torture said. We didn't outlaw robbery because it doesn't work, but because it is wrong. And I think, beyond this, of course, there are all these studies that it is highly unprofessional to use torture, that you don't yield the proper result, that people tell you whatever they are. But it's really not the decisive point. The decisive point is do we have certain standards that apply to everyone and anywhere? And this is why, again, the universality issue is important, because these days you have the impression I have empathy to victims, depending on who they are and by whom they have been victimized.
Speaker 3:The universality of human rights is about whoever. It doesn't matter whether you're a good guy or bad guy when it comes to torture. It's really not the point. It doesn't matter whether you belong to one group or the other. And if we don't understand this and the centrality of the absolute prohibition as the basis for what universality means, I think we are in very difficult waters. But really it is about law, it is about standards, it is about morals, it is about ethics. But, yes, I mean, there are so many studies out there that torture doesn't produce security. Torture doesn't produce the right results unless the purpose of torture which it often is is to terrorize societies. Hundreds of prisoners were rounded up and taken to the national stadium.
Speaker 6:We slept on the floor.
Speaker 4:It was very cold. We had to leave a small passage so that the soldiers would come and get us in the night to take us to the torture and interrogation rooms. Sometimes some of our comrades left and never returned.
Speaker 2:Well, there are governments out there who are keen on terrorising their populations in a bid to keep them meek, biddable and basically silent. But most of them have actually ratified the Convention Against Torture. It's Alice Edwards' job to remind them of their obligations. So I had another question for her. You are the UN Special Rapporteur on torture. You deal with countries, with their law enforcement. Could you give me a flavour of that? Are most countries happy to see you, happy to take your advice, or do you get pushback? Or do people treat you like a nuisance?
Speaker 5:It all depends. To be honest. I have a lot of good cooperation with a wide range of countries, including those countries that perhaps have a poorer track record of torture than others. I also have pushback. I also face silence. I also face accusations of providing false or misleading information. So there is pushback providing false or misleading information so there is pushback. It's definitely on the rise, I would say, because torture is also on the rise. One of the very interesting things about this whole area of torture is that torture is universally condemned but widely practiced. So states are very clear that they condemn and object to torture but, on the other hand, on the sides, behind closed doors, it might in fact be a widespread practice in their countries.
Speaker 2:Does that discourage you?
Speaker 5:I think you know the role of special rapporteur on torture comes with a lot of heaviness. To be honest, there's a huge burden of responsibility to keep the focus on these types of crimes when, of course, there are a lot of other challenges in the world. I take heart by the small and steady pace of some countries and a growing number that are really are trying to do the right thing, that are reforming their laws, that have learnt from their past that torture and the use of it only creates divisions in society, and to move forward in the 21st century they need to bridge those gaps. But of course, there's a whole list of countries that do practice torture systematically, that it is still part of their state policy, and breaking that cycle, breaking those mindsets, is the work that myself and many others really have to do on a daily basis.
Speaker 2:And there's another side to the convention support and reparation for those who have endured it. Gerald Stabarok and his colleagues work with survivors of torture.
Speaker 3:You know, many people ask me whether I'm deeply depressed because I work on a dire issue.
Speaker 3:But it's a little bit like asking a doctor whether he's depressed dealing with diseases. I see the cure and I think working with survivors is very, very, very encouraging because you can see how you rebuild lives. Torture is not just a violation that happens physically, with the traces you have, but it stays your life, with psychological traces in particular, but it stays you alive, with psychological traces in particular. But it is a work that globally is done more and more to put survivors back in their shoes, that they contribute to their societies, that they can maintain their families, because torture really destroys the fabric of society as well. But we are a civil society network. We work with 200 organizations around the world where torture is rampant, and that we can support those organizations, give them the feeling they're part of a global struggle, not in isolation, is tremendously important. And what stands out to me is these people in countries where it is dangerous to work on torture, where it is difficult, who dedicate their life to doing this, and this is just an extraordinary experience if we're able to help them.
Speaker 1:The convention requires states holding a suspected torturer to prosecute or extradite him, and protect and compensate torture victims.
Speaker 2:And on the UN side there is a perhaps lesser-known aspect of the support the Convention can offer. Alice Edwards doesn't just visit countries, go into their prisons and detention centres and scrutinise governments. Individual survivors of torture can bring their own complaints directly to her. So how does that work in practice? How do governments respond?
Speaker 5:It's a bit of a mixed bag, whether they do or not. Some are very quick to call me about the allegations, others are methodical in their responses and many are silent. Many object to those allegations. So it's a back and forth, it's a conversation, it's a dialogue. It's not, though, and shouldn't just be, a paper trail. I try very hard to make sure I also call the governments, have a good conversation, tell them I'm following up, and if I'm unsatisfied that I'll continue to pursue the case with them, but I have to say I receive thousands of allegation letters per year which involve even more people than that. So some of them are multiple complainants, some of them are hundreds of complainants in a single allegation letter, and the resourcing and the staffing ability to be able to process them is very minuscule. That only a very small fraction of those cases am I actually able to pursue, and that is that is something I've struggled with in this position really just this inability to be as effective as actually one could be.
Speaker 2:Is there one case, one torture survivor, that you've come across during your time as Special Rapporteur that really stands out in your mind? That might bring home to us why there really does need to be a convention.
Speaker 5:I have many stories, many faces, the trust of victims and survivors, so I don't like to single out a single person, but I understand the need to bring this home.
Speaker 5:Involved horrendous forms of torture in the form of sexual enslavement, but also beatings, forcing people to commit crimes, which is also a form of psychological torture, mutilations, just the most graphic and egregious violations. And I met with a range of different survivors women and girls of different ages, who were different ages when they were taken, but also young men and young men who so far have been kind of on the margins of any redress or support for what they have suffered. These people need this support. This framework gives them hope, it allows them to hold their governments to account, to remind them of the standards they've signed up to. So you know, on all those occasions it's really important to have this booklet that essentially kind of sets it out step by step, and that governments are then not able to say to victims and survivors oh, we have no obligations or we're doing our best. We need more than the best to be done, especially these days.
Speaker 2:So, as the convention marks its 40th anniversary, is there any cause for celebration? Both Alice and Gerald agree the convention was a huge step forward, but now they expect more from governments and from all of us.
Speaker 5:These are tremendous strides since thinking before the Second World War about how this was more a routine practice. But really it would be wonderful to see states take their obligations seriously and, in this anniversary year, make changes and make commitments to make changes. Of course, words are easy and often spoken at the United Nations and elsewhere, but really the commitment is to their own people and those within their territories. It's not something to be said in the corridors of the Palais de Nation in Geneva or in New York. I want to see it said to the people on the street, the people who are in detention, the people that come in contact and in conflict with the law. That would be really an amazing momentum to take forward.
Speaker 3:I think what disturbs me most is ignorance and complacency. I think what we see is so often at every level, at the government level yes, torture is bad, but that's about it and you don't really eradicate it, you don't translate it into political will. And this is precisely. I think, 40 years on, the Torture Convention is about critical self-reflection and introspection, but also setting a policy against torture. Torture doesn is about critical self-reflection and introspection, but also setting a policy against torture.
Speaker 3:Torture doesn't appear on its own. Torture needs active steps if you really want to eradicate it. You have to work with your police, you have to enable civil society to work, you have to recognize victims and make them actors. There's so much you have to do and you have to investigate torture. Many people say, well, we don't want torture, we want to prevent torture. But when torture happens, very few states investigate and bring it to justice and for as long as this is not done, torture will not be eradicated.
Speaker 3:But what disturbs me the most is really the complacency. We hear about torture more and more and we don't act anymore. And 40 years ago we acted when we heard about torture. This is why the torture convention is there and we take it for granted that it's there but we don't mobilize in any way our hearts, our minds, our policies. We want to unite the movement and reunite it on the 40th anniversary of the convention, because so much more has to be done to really eradicate. We have to recognize it is still a problem and we have to recognize it is a problem for torture, for individuals, for society. A society that tortures is a sick society.
Speaker 2:Does anyone disagree? I hope not. Our societies and that means all of us, surely should be able to unite around a few fundamental principles of humanity, including an absolute prohibition on torture. My thanks to Alice Edwards and Gerald Stabarock for their time, expertise and insight. And if you're especially interested in international law and how it can help us treat each other better, take a look at our back catalogue, where you can find special episodes on the Convention Against Landmines, on enforced disappearances and on the world's newest treaty the ban on nuclear weapons, music on the world's newest treaty the ban on nuclear weapons, and a reminder that next week, on October 7th, we've got a very special episode for you with highlights of our coverage over the last year on the conflict in the Middle East.
Speaker 7:What we have to deal with is the immense stupidity of the wars that currently are in place, and here we are having to deal with wars of a sort that were better found in the history books devoted to the 20th century and ought not to have a place in the 21st.
Speaker 8:I care about the families of the people who are taken hostages. I care about the civilians in Israel who regularly have to go in the basement, and I also care about the Palestinians. One does not exclude the other. We're not doing accounting.
Speaker 2:We'll hear how, while the diplomats and political leaders dither about how to bring peace, the humanitarian agencies are facing huge challenges and risks. Do join us then. That's it for this edition of Inside Geneva. I'm Imogen Folks. Thank you for listening. Listening A reminder. You've been listening to Inside Geneva, a Swiss Info production. You can email us on insidegeneva at swissinfoch and subscribe to us and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Check out our previous episodes how the International Red Cross unites prisoners of war with their families, or why survivors of human rights violations turn to the UN in Geneva for justice. I'm Imogen Folks. Thanks again for listening you.
