▾

External sources (not reviewed)

[...] [...] subjected to by the police seeking his confession.

[...] [...] conducive to confessions obtained under torture or [...]

These include claims of beatings during interrogation, torture by electric shocks, forced confessions, secret detention facilities, and a lack of medical attention.

Moreover, in paragraph 6 (c), the Council urges States to “ensure that no statement established to have been made as a result of torture is invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made”.

[...] [...] and whether any officials have been prosecuted and punished for extracting such confessions.

[...] [...] to extract confessions; the various [...] [...]

Strongly urges States to ensure that no statement that is established to have been made as a result of torture is invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made, and calls upon States to consider extending that prohibition to statements made as a result of other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and recognizes that adequate corroboration of statements, including confessions, used as evidence in any proceedings constitutes one safeguard for the prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

[...] [...] extraction of confessions under torture [...]

The liquidator may, with the like authority, vest any part of the assets in trustees upon such trusts for the benefit of members as the liquidator, with the like authority, shall think fit, but so that no contributory shall be compelled to accept any shares or other property in respect of which there is a liability.

These individuals also stated that, while in the custody of security agents, they were beaten and tortured by interrogators and jailers for the purposes of extracting a confession or in order to humiliate them.

(1) a confession obtained by oppression or in unreliable circumstances must be excluded (section 76).

The source reiterates that the primary fair trial concern that remains after the final Supreme Court judgement is that the convictions still appear to be based in part on confessions made by the three individuals, who were at the time children, which they have alleged to have been extracted as a result of torture or other ill-treatment.

Moreover, when the military criminal justice system is applied to civilians, the outcome is convictions obtained on the basis of proceedings vitiated by abuses of all kinds in which not only does the right to a defence become a chimera, but much of the evidence is obtained by means of torture or cruel and inhuman treatment.

[...] [...] investigation of forced confessions.

[...] [...] containing confessions extracted [...]

In that connection, the Attorney General has proposed that special attention be paid to human rights offences, including torture, inflicting bodily injury while performing a public function, using force to obtain statements, hostage-taking, prosecution of innocent persons, genocide and war crimes, as set out in the decision mentioned above.

There are numerous methods of prevention that have been developed in the past, which, if adequately implemented by States, could easily eradicate torture: abolition of secret and incommunicado detention; proper registration of every detainee from the moment of arrest or apprehension; prompt access to legal counsel within 24 hours; access to relatives; prompt access to an independent judge; presumption of innocence; prompt and independent medical examination of all detainees; video/audio recording of all interrogations; no detention under the control of the interrogators or investigators for more than 48 hours; prompt, impartial and effective investigation of all allegations or suspicions of torture; inadmissibility of evidence obtained under torture; and effective training of all officials involved in the custody, interrogation and medical care of detainees.

The boy was threatened and beaten for the purposes of obtaining a confession.

[...] [...] as a means of coercing a confession [...] [...]

[...] [...] disallow any confessions obtained through the [...] [...]

[...] [...] coercion of confessions by torture as well as the unlawful gathering of evidence.

It is also an offence under the Penal Code for anyone to cause hurt to or wrongfully confine a person for the purpose of extorting a confession or any information, which may lead to the detection of an offence.

The source notes that despite the Government’s claim that the allegations of torture and ill-treatment had not been proven either during the preliminary investigation or in subsequent court hearings, it does not appear that any court conducted a thorough, impartial inquiry into the allegations of torture and other ill-treatment.

As noted above, however, if a confession is obtained by oppression or in unreliable circumstances (or if evidence is required to be excluded by some other rule of law) it must be excluded and there is no discretion not to exclude it (see section 78(2)).

The committee is also concerned that victims of torture by law enforcement and prison personnel in some cases are unable to report such violations and that confessions obtained under torture are still taken into consideration during court hearings, notwithstanding the explicit provision on the inadmissibility of confessions obtained under duress under the Criminal Procedure Code.

[...] [...] evidence that the statement was made.

The State party should take the steps necessary to ensure that confessions obtained under torture or duress are inadmissible in court in all cases, in line with its domestic legislation and article 14 of the Covenant.

Principle 21 of the Body of Principles prohibits taking “undue advantage of the situation of a detained or imprisoned person for the purpose of compelling him to confess, to incriminate himself otherwise or to testify against another person”.

This includes violence in all its forms against children in order to extract a confession, to extrajudicially punish children for unlawful or unwanted behaviours, or to force children to engage in activities against their will, typically applied by police and law-enforcement officers, staff of residential and other institutions and persons who have power over children, including non-State armed actors.