Guantanamo Bay

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs written question – answered at on 6 March 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Nick Clegg Nick Clegg Shadow Secretary of State (Home Office)

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the infliction of simulated drowning falls within the definition of torture or cruel and inhumane treatment used by the Government for the purposes of international law.

Photo of Ian Pearson Ian Pearson Minister of State (Trade), Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Minister of State (Trade), Department of Trade and Industry

Whether the conduct described constitutes torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment for the purposes of the UN Convention Against Torture would depend on all the circumstances of the case.

Does this answer the above question?

Yes2 people think so

No11 people think not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.

Annotations

Julian Todd
Posted on 13 Mar 2006 3:54 pm (Report this annotation)

The minister, not the questioner, chose to cite the UN Convention Against Torture. We can therefore assume he understands it. Article 2 of the convention says:

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

So the "circumstances of the case" he refers to cannot be the neverending war on terror.

There may be a clue in Article 1:

"[T]he term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person... It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Perhaps there is some "lawful sanction" which results in "simulated drowning", but I don't what it could be.

I can't find anything else which excuses the minister from giving a yes/no answer to the question.

Incidentally, the US Administration seems to have decided the answer is "no" by the simple expedient of unilaterally redefining torture as activities resulting in "death, organ failure or the permanent impairment of a significant body function".