Difference between revisions of "Representing Victims of Torture"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 19: Line 19:
 
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has made the intent requirement easier to satisfy by creating a rebuttable presumption of torture for those who are injured while in police custody. In Selmouni v. France, the ECHR noted that "where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused" <ref> Selmouni v. France, 29 E.H.R.R. 403, 426 (2000) </ref>.   
 
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has made the intent requirement easier to satisfy by creating a rebuttable presumption of torture for those who are injured while in police custody. In Selmouni v. France, the ECHR noted that "where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused" <ref> Selmouni v. France, 29 E.H.R.R. 403, 426 (2000) </ref>.   
  
The Inter-American Court doesn't consider intent at all, and in one case, it
+
Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention describes torture as any act intended to "obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish" <ref> Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture </ref>.  It seems that intent can be inferred, as in one case, the Inter-American Court
  
 
====2. Severe pain or suffering====  
 
====2. Severe pain or suffering====  

Revision as of 11:50, 1 July 2010