Using recent cases of torture from several Asian countries, this lesson discusses the significance of visiting places of detention in torture prevention.

A. Routine torture

Torture is unfortunately all too common throughout Asia, whether practiced by the military or the police. Among the primary places where torture and ill treatment occur are places of detention. These can include high security prisons, juvenile detention centres, police lock-ups and so forth. The following cases are only a few incidents of custodial torture that have been documented recently by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).

On 3 February 2007, 33-year-old Ali Nawaz died due to the torture he suffered in the Malir central jail of Karachi, Pakistan. Nawaz was detained with two of his friends by an officer at the Gadap police kiosk at a highway on January 18. The officer demanded that they pay him 5000 rupees, or else they would be falsely charged. Unable to pay the sum, the men were taken to the Gadap police station, charged with stealing telephone wires and tortured. On January 26, the three men were sent to the Malir central jail, where they were again asked for money, this time a sum of 20 000 rupees. When Nawaz protested, one jail official began to brutally assault him.

While Nawaz's two friends were produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court of Malir on February 2, Nawaz was not present. His friends told his family that Nawaz was unable to come as he was severely injured from torture. When his family arrived at the Malir jail, they were told by an officer that unless they paid the 20 000 rupees, they would receive Nawaz's dead body. Early the next morning, Nawaz's brother received a call asking him to collect Nawaz's dead body from the Malir jail. When he did so, he saw severe torture marks on Nawaz's back, neck, head and legs [See AHRC UA-046-2007, 9 February 2007].

In a report published by the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), sister organization of the AHRC in February 2007, titled 'The criminal justice system of the Philippines is rotten', 110 cases of disappearance, extrajudicial killing, arbitrary arrest and torture are documented. In one of the cases, 11 persons were brutally tortured and subsequently falsely charged following their arrest on 14 February 2006. They were severely beaten on different parts of their body, including the genitals. Some of the victims were thrown into a pit and had soil, garbage and other matter dumped over their heads. They were also electrocuted. The victims were tortured to force them to admit responsibility for a raid of a military camp in Cabiten, Mankayan, Benguet on February 10. However, a rebel group had already admitted responsibility for the raid [See article2, vol. 6, no. 1, pp.106-109].

An earlier report published by the ALRC in August 2006, 'Lawless law enforcement & the parody of the judiciary in Bangladesh' documented cases of police and military brutality in that country. In one case, 18-year-old Rashed Ullah was arrested with five others during a police raid in Chittagong on 29 June 2006, and taken to the Hathazari police station. There the police assaulted Rashed until he fell into a coma. He was thereafter taken to the police station health complex, but died within 10 minutes of arrival [See article2, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 53].

Both Bangladesh and the Philippines are parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which prohibits torture and requires countries to enact legislation criminalizing torture. In spite of this, torture is widespread in both countries, largely due to the lack of such legislation. This in effect grants impunity to the perpetrators, while leaving victims and their families with no effective remedies. Many victims, such as Rashed, lose their lives. The survivors are usually too scared to speak out, while the few who do raise their voices face further torture, fabricated charges or intimidation.

B. Prevention

While most countries in Asia have constitutional provisions against torture, and many have even ratified the Convention against Torture, the above cases make it clear that the practice of torture has by no means been eliminated. This is largely due to the lack of domestic legislation criminalizing the use of torture (see HRCS Lesson Series 28 for a comparison of national legislation on torture). Apart from the absence of legislation, there are other political and social factors that allow impunity and torture to flourish (see HRCS Lesson Series 41 for a detailed study of torture in various Asian countries).

The Convention against Torture requires states to enact laws making torture a criminal offence and ensure that mechanisms exist for making complaints and seeking redress. Its Optional Protocol (OPCAT) requires states to establish mechanisms to visit places of detention. This is a practical measure towards reducing torture and improving conditions for detainees; in other words, the Protocol helps governments to fulfil their obligations under the Convention against Torture. Apart from physical torture and pain, many detainees suffer from a lack of adequate food, medical attention and sanitary conditions. Although there are many guidelines and standards regarding the treatment of prisoners and detainees, these are rarely met in the majority of Asian countries (see HRCS Lesson Series 31 for details regarding prison conditions in three Asian countries). Many places of detention are by definition closed to the outside world and persons deprived of their liberties are vulnerable to all forms of ill treatment. Furthermore, respect of their fundamental rights and needs depends exclusively upon the authorities in charge. Regular visits can therefore improve the transparency within detention centres, which in turn will reduce the levels of abuse.

Not only are such visits crucial for the immediate well being of the detainees, but sustained monitoring and documentation generated by the visits can be used to address systemic issues. In this way, the visits serve a short term as well as long term purpose. In the immediate sense they can help to deal with problems faced by the detainees, while over time they can work towards effective torture prevention strategies.

The OPCAT is a preventive strategy to eliminate torture. It focuses on cooperation and collaboration with government institutions and promotes constructive and less adversarial ways of ensuring compliance.

Questions For Discussion

1. Are you aware of specific instances of torture in your country?
2. Are there any independent monitoring bodies visiting places of detention?
3. Discuss how visiting places of detention can help a state in preventing torture. What are the limits of such visits?