Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or Punishment (cont.…)
The fact that one is not 'spiritual' does not mean that he is devoid of all qualities and values. Many do have a lot of moral
values violation of which can and do cause 'uneasiness 'of human mind or unsettling of the same. Just listen to these incidents from my personal diary.(1) instead of the son, a police officer forcefully took brought his father to the police station. The son got the information and he surrendered; (2) visiting the home of the suspects regularly at irregular hours just to harass the family members and thereby the force the suspect to surrender and confess the crime. They are not only immoral but also illegal. The wife, mother or children of the detainee are brought to the police station and then forcing them to remain there in a condition of starvation for hours together until at last he makes a confession or gives information. They are infamies and therefore I may prefer to amend the Article to read"….any act or omission by which severe pain or suffering ,whether physical or mental or both or spiritual or moral is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act…"
Here again, why did the Convention consider only an "act" and not "omission"? Crime is defined as a violation of law and the violation can be in the commission or in the omission.Therefor the amended version should be:"… for an act or omission he or a third person has committed/omitted or is suspected of having committed/omitted or intimidating …" The words intimidate and coerce do not give the meaning in its full strength. Hence, more" words" signifying meanings must be added and in my opinion, they can be "provoking, instigating,encouraging,inviting,contributing etc. Precisely therefor, I suggest to include such words too to read:"…or intimidating, provoking,instigating,encouraging,inviting,contributing,conniving or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind …"There, "for any reason based on discrimination of any kind"-the expression is vague and can be interpreted in one thousand ways.What does the Convention mean by "Discrimination of any kind? "when the discrimination can be made on many counts such as sex,age,nationality,regionalism,religion,caste,subcaste,denomination,language,colour of the skin,education,profession,marital status,finance,social position, political affiliations,"sophies","isms","ologies",culture and what not? Hence my considered view is to delete the entire phrase or portion from the description of TORTURE to read: "… coercing him or a third person when such pain of suffering is inflicted…" Here, I do not favour a second "infliction" in the description as the word "inflicted" is already used once. Hence, I suggest putting "CAUSED" instead "inflicted" Why? "Caused" may be by self or by others. Cause has a better meaning in language and philosophy. Cause has an effect and " caused" has an effect of" pain or suffering".Behavioural science to subscribe to such a view. Hence it follows-"…pain or suffering is caused by or at the instigation of…"The expression "instigation of" again does not convey everything intended by the Convention. Everything here may mean-(1)conspiracy of silence, (2)conspiracy of approval,(3)conspiracy of encouragement,(4)conspiracy of appreciation,(5)conspiracy of connivance etc. and "instigation" becomes one of the several ways the conspiracy may be conveyed. Therefore, I suggest substituting "instrumental to" for instigation of .It is to read thus:"…pain or suffering is caused by or as instrumental to or with the…"In the original text of the Convention, the word CONSENT follows. In my view, CONSENT alone is not enough. Therefore I suggest to put "knowledge" as well. There were instances in which some officials have caused pain or/ and suffering without the consent of their superiors/supervisors. For, they would be the blue eyed sons of the political executives, especially- the Minister of Home. In such instances, torture could be seen without express or implied consent of the higher officials, but certainly with the knowledge which they have.They helplessly tolerate them without initiating any sort of action against their subordinates/associates who torture the helpless in their custody. This is a sort of callous indifference and culpable negligence to enforce human rights justice. Hence the suggested amendment is-"…with the knowledge or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person in an official capacity" (to be contd.)
No comments:
Post a Comment