Papers by Gabriela Echeverria
Inƒormación STA CEJIL tes sobre Derechos Humanos y el Sistema Interamericano What is torture? M e... more Inƒormación STA CEJIL tes sobre Derechos Humanos y el Sistema Interamericano What is torture? M ethods comparable to the rack and the thumbscrew are still employed in many parts of the world, but current notions of what may amount to torture refl ect both the employment of increasingly sophisticated techniques and the growing awareness of their effect on victims. Torture was defi ned in the past as the infl iction of excruciating pain, but this is now too narrow a description. Not all legal texts proscribing torture defi ne the term. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides that "[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" without further defi nition, leaving it to case law to elaborate on what that means. Article 1 of the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment does, however, provide a defi nition and, though expressed to be for the purposes of that Convention, it represents a general consensus as to what constitutes torture under international law. 1 Article 1 is expressed to be "without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application." For example, torture under the Statute of the International Criminal Court has a wider defi nition in that it is not limited to acts by a public offi cial. 2 The Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture: an overview of the law* Both torture and inhuman and degrading treatment have long been proscribed by international law instruments. Conceptions of what constitutes torture under international law have evolved from narrow defi nitions that required infl iction of excruciating pain to a broader understanding that, at a minimum, torture encompasses acts that cause severe pain and suffering-whether physical or emotional. There is an absolute prohibition in international law against torture. The prohibition applies even in times of national emergency or war, and there are no exceptions or justifi cations. But while there is general consensus on a baseline defi nition of torture, there is little international agreement on what constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment and on where to locate the line that separates such treatment from torture. This article explores how different international and national bodies have defi ned both torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, and analyzes the consequences of divergent defi nitions for governmental obligations under international law, with a focus on United States policies and practices.
The present thesis evaluates the international legal standing of the right to a remedy and repara... more The present thesis evaluates the international legal standing of the right to a remedy and reparation contained in the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law. It focuses on two aspects of the right to a remedy and reparation. First, it examines the application of state responsibility principles to the relationship between states and individuals when human rights and international humanitarian law violations are committed. Secondly, it analyses the convergence of norms of state liability in different branches of international law: human rights law, the law on diplomatic protection, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law. It advances the proposition that state responsibility for reparation in favour of individuals has crystallised in international law. The thesis is divided in four chapters. The first is an introductory ch...
Torture : quarterly journal on rehabilitation of torture victims and prevention of torture, 2006
Human Rights Law Review, 2008
The International Journal of Human Rights, 2012
This article investigates whether victims of torture and other serious human rights violations ha... more This article investigates whether victims of torture and other serious human rights violations have an independent and enforceable right to reparation in international law (outside specific state-created remedies). It analyses whether international responsibility rules apply to individuals as they do to states and whether individual claims can be brought in domestic or foreign courts when no international remedy is available. By examining the different doctrinal positions in regards to individual rights and reparation, it concludes that it is incoherent to acknowledge the existence of substantive individual rights under general international law while contesting a corollary right to reparation. It further establishes that if it were considered that only states have the corresponding secondary rights, there would be clear gap in the human rights protection system. As the article illustrates, diplomatic protection is insufficient to protect individuals nowadays when international law recognises that states can breach the human rights of their own citizens. Likewise, even if it is recognised that in a limited number of cases the international community/third states can claim reparation on behalf of individuals, in practice the current legal framework cannot sufficiently secure their rights.
Uploads
Papers by Gabriela Echeverria