| Stress And Duress |
Article Index for Stress |
Website Links For Stress |
Information AboutStress And Duress |
|
MANY DETAINEES ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS If they are combatants Prisoners Of War then they are covered by the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) until and unless "''their status has been determined by a competent tribunal''(GCIII Art 5) to be that of a non-combatant or an Unlawful Combatant in which case they are covered by Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) unless they are "''Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.''"(GCIV Art 4. paragraph 2). But even if they are covered by GCIV the US can waver a detainee's GCIV rights by invoking GCIV Article 5. "''is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.''" This means that for many of the detainees being held by the US, they do not have the protection of the Geneva Convetions (GCs). So in many cases the US does not have to report that they are holding a person to the Red Cross because the person is not coverd by the GCs and any prohibitions on torture in GCIV are not applicable. For those held in Iraq it is even more complicated because it depends on whether the person being held is being held in an internal or an international conflict. INTERNATIONAL EUROPEAN RULING ON SENSORY DEPRIVATION Although not binding on the US in any way, this ruling is a useful indicator of international judicial views on the "stress and duress" methods authorised for use by the US administraion. In 1978 in the European Court Of Human Rights (ECHR) trial "Ireland v. the United Kingdom" the facts were not in dispute and the judges court published the following in their judgement: These methods, sometimes termed "disorientation" or " Sensory Deprivation " techniques, were not used in any cases other than the fourteen so indicated above. It emerges from the Commission's establishment of the facts that the techniques consisted of ...wall-standing; hooding; subjection to noise; deprivation of sleep; deprivation of food and drink. These were referred to by the court as The Five Techniques . The court ruled: 167. ... Although the five techniques, as applied in combination, undoubtedly amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, although their object was the extraction of confessions, the naming of others and/or information and although they were used systematically, they did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture as so understood. ... 168. The Court concludes that recourse to the five techniques amounted to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment, which practice was in breach of EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|