Perception, practice and proximity. Qualifying threats as psychological torture in international law.
Keywords:fear, threats, coercion, anguish, interrogation
Background: Fear is a central dimension of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (hereafter ‘other ill-treatment’), particularly as a part of verbal or non-verbal threats. Adjudicators and policy-makers have grappled, arguably at a greater depth than with other methods of psychological torture, with the circumstances in which fear-based methods amount to torture or other ill-treatment. The pursuit of non-coercive standards of police interrogation has further underscored the need to better distinguish the prohibited from the permitted. Upon this background, this article reviews the existing jurisprudential and social scientific literature in formulating a lens through which fear-inducing methods could be better functionally conceptualised. Method: This article has identified, through systematic full-text search of databases, texts with keywords ‘threat’, ‘fear’, ‘coercion’, ‘intimidation’, ‘distress’, ‘anguish’ and ‘psychological pressure’. The identified texts, limited to English-language journal articles, NGO reports, court-cases and UN documents from 1950 to date, were then selected for relevance pertaining to conceptual, evidentiary and legal critique provided therein. Discussion: Whilst it is broadly recognized that the deployment of fear to inflict violence can amount to torture, methods of threats or coercion are not adequately conceptualized particularly at the lower end, i.e. routine interrogational torture. Here, principles pertaining to the legitimate use of force and minimum level of severity are used as functional guidelines to distinguish the prohibited from the permitted. The power, practice and proximity of state authorities to harm necessarily qualify threats as real, immediate and credible and therefore torturous.
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
(2014). Monim Elgak, Osman Hummeida and
Amir Suliman v. Sudan. Comm 379/09.
Argitutz, AEN, Ekimen, GAC, Jaiki Haidi et al.
(2014). Incommunicado detention and torture.
Assessments using the Istanbul Protocol. Marra &
Baldwin, S., Fehrenbacher, A., & Eisenman, D.
(2014). Psychological Coercion in Human
Trafficking: An Application of Biderman’s
Framework. Qualitative Health Research, 1(11).
Başoğlu, M. (ed). (2017). Torture and Its Definition in
International Law: An Interdisciplinary Approach.
New York: Oxford University Press. doi.
Başoğlu, M., Livanou, M., Crnobaric, C.,
Frančišković, T., Suljić, E., Djuric, D, & Vranesić,
M. (2005). Psychiatric and Cognitive Effects of
War in Former Yugoslavia: Association of Lack
of Redress for Trauma and Posttraumatic Stress
Reactions. JAMA: the Journal of the American
Medical Association. 294. 580-90. doi:10.1001/
Başoğlu, M. (2009). A multivariate contextual analysis
of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading
treatments: Implications for an evidencebased
definition of torture. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 79(2), 135–145. https://doi.
Brown K. (2015). Vulnerability and Young People: Care
and Social Control in Policy and Practice. Bristol:
Cakal, E. (2018). Debility, dependency and dread:
On the conceptual and evidentiary dimensions of
psychological torture. Torture Journal, 28(2), pp.
-37. doi: 10.7146/torture.v28i2.106908.
Cakal, E. (2019). Befogging reason, undermining will:
Understanding sleep Deprivation as torture and
other ill-treatment in international law. Torture
Journal. 29(2), pp. 11-22. doi.org/10.7146/
CAT. (2003). Inquiry procedure: Mexico, CAT/C/75.
CAT. (2008a). Concluding Observations on
CAT. (2006). Concluding Observations on USA.
CAT. (2008b). Ali v. Tunisia. CAT/C/41/D/291/2006.
CAT. (2015). Larez v. Venezuela. CAT/
CAT. (2015). Martínez v. Mexico. CAT/
CAT. (2017). S.S.B v. Denmark. CAT/
CAT. (2017b). General Comment 4 (2017) on the
implementation of article 3 of the Convention in
the context of article 22. CAT/C/GC/4.
CPT. (2002). 12th General Report, CPT/Inf (2002)
David, G.C., Warfield Rawls, A., Trainum, J.
(2017). Playing the Interrogation Game:
Rapport, Coercion and Confessions in Police
Interrogations. Symbolic Interaction, Vol 41 (1),
Davis, D., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2004). The road
to perdition: “Extreme influence” tactics in
the interrogation room. In W. T. O’Donohue,
E. Levensky (Eds.) Handbook of forensic
psychology (pp. 897-996). NY, Elsevier Academic
Dehaghani, R. (2020). Interrogating Vulnerability:
Reframing the Vulnerable Suspect in Police
Custody. Social & Legal Studies. https://doi.
Dimitriu, G. (2013). Interrogation, Coercion and
Torture: Dutch Debates and Experiences after
/11, Intelligence and National Security. 28 (4),
ECCC. (2010). Duch, Case 001. Trial Chamber
Judgment, 26 July 2010.
ECHR. (2009). Alexandru Marius Radu v. Romania.
ECHR. (1996). Aydin v. Turkey, 57/1996/676/866.
ECHR. (2018). Azzolina et Autres c. Italie, 28923/09
ECHR. (2009). Bouyid v. Belgium. 23380/09 [GC].
ECHR. (1982). Campbell and Cosans v. United
Kingdom. 7511/76, 7743/76.
ECHR. (2007). Dybeku v. Albania. 41153/06.
ECHR. (2012). El Masri v. Macedonia. 39630/09.
ECHR. (2004). Elci and Ors. v. Turkey. 23145/93 and
ECHR. (1980). Guzzardi v. Italy. 7367/76.
ECHR. (2010). Gäfgen v. Germany. 22978/05.
ECHR. (2014). Husayn (Zubaydah) v. Poland.
ECHR. (2000). Jager v. the Netherlands (dec.),
ECHR. (2000). Magee v. the UK, 28135/95.
ECHR. (2007). Musayev and Others v. Russia.
/00, 58699/00, 60403/00.
ECHR. (2011). Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine.
ECHR. (2016). Ortsuyeva and Others v. Russia.
ECHR. (1999). Selmouni v. France. 25803/94.
ECHR. (1989). Soering v. United Kingdom. 14038/88.
ECommHR. (1969). Greek Case. Comm Rep, 5 Nov.
, 12 ECHRYb.
Ginbar, Y. (2008). Why not torture terrorists? Moral,
practical, and legal aspects of the 'ticking bomb'
justification for torture. Oxford University Press.
Gudjonsson, G. (2003). The Psychology of
Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook.
Guiora, A. N. (2008a). Interrogation of Detainees:
Extending a Hand or a Boot? University of
Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 41(2), 375.
Guiora, A. N. Coercive Interrogation, Threats,
and Cumulative Mistreatment. 83-104.
In Guiora, A. N. (2008b). Constitutional
Limits on Coercive Interrogation. Oxford
University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:
Hilgendorf E.L., Irving B. (1981). A Decision-
Making Model of Confessions. In: Lloyd-Bostock
S.M.A. (eds) Psychology in Legal Contexts. Oxford
Socio-Legal Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
House of Commons Debates Hansard 8 September
, col. 572. as cited in Bates, E. 2019.
Distorted Terminology: The UK’s Closure
of Investigations into Alleged Torture and
Inhuman Treatment in Iraq. International
and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1-21, p. 4.
Human Rights Committee. (1990). Estrella v.
Uruguay. 74/1980, CCPR/C/OP/2 at 93.
Human Rights Committee. (1994). Mukong v.
Cameroon. 458/1991, CCPR-C-51-D-458-1991.
Human Rights Committee. (2007). Njaru v.
Human Rights Committee. (2005) Khalilova v.
Human Rights Committee. (2006). Bousroual v.
IACtHR. (2009) González v. Mexico, Preliminary
Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs,
Judgment, Series C No. 205.
IACtHR. (2006). Baldeón-García v. Peru. 06 April
Series C No. 147.
IACtHR. (2000). Case of Cantoral-Benavides.
Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69.
IACtHR. (1999). Case of the "Street Children"
(Villagran-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala.
IACtHR. (2007). Case of the Rochela Massacre
v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs.
Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163
IACtHR. (2006). Goiburu et al v. Paraguay, Judgment,
September 2006, (Ser. C) No. 221.
IACtHR. (2003). Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. 27
November 2003. Series C No. 103.
IACtHR. (2004). Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary
objections, merits, reparations and costs, IACHR
Series C no 114, IHRL 1497, 7th September
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
(1987). ICRC Commentary on the Additional
Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions
of 12 August 1949. (Yves Sandoz, Christophe
Swinarski & Bruno Zimmermann eds. 1987).
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
(1977). Protocol Additional to the Geneva
Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the
Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
(Protocol I), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3.
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
(1949). Geneva Convention Relative to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva
Convention). 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135.
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY). (2001). Prosecutor v. Kunarac.
IT-96-23-T & IT-96-23/1-T, Judgment.
ICTY. (2002). Prosecutor v. Krnojelac. IT-97-25,
ICTY. (2004). Prosecutor v. Brdanin, IT-99-36-T,
Judgment, (Sept. 1, 2004).
ICTY. (2003). Prosecutor v. Simić, IT-95-9-T,
Judgment, (Oct. 17, 2003).
ICTY. (1998). Prosecutor v. Delalić, IT-96-21-T,
Judgment (Nov. 16, 1998)).
ICTY. (2000). Prosecutor v. Blaskic, IT-95-14-T,
Judgment (Mar. 3, 2000).
ICTY. (2003). Prosecutor v. Naletilic, IT-98-34-T,
Judgment (Mar. 31, 2003).
Inbau, F.E., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J.P., & Jayne, B. C.
(2003). Criminal Interrogation and Confessions.
Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Mendez, J. & A. Nicolescu. (2017). Evolving
Standards for Torture in International Law. In
M. Basoglu. (2017). Torture and Its Definition in
International Law. Oxford,
Nowak, M. & McArthur E. (2008). United Nations
Convention Against Torture: A Commentary. New
York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.
Ojeda, A. (ed). (2008). The Trauma of Psychological
Olsen, D. R., Montgomery, E., Carlsson, J.,
Foldspang, A., & Bøjholm, S. (2006). Prevalent
pain and pain level among torture survivors. A
follow up study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 29
Oxford University Press (1990). The Concise Oxford
Dictionary of Current English.
Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI).
(2019). Torture in Israel 2019: Situation Report.
Pérez-Sales, P. (2017). Psychological Torture: Definition,
Evaluation and Measurement. London: Routledge.
Pérez-Sales, P. (2017b). Drawing the fine line
between interrogation and torture: towards a
Universal Protocol on Investigative Interviewing.
Torture Journal. 27 (2).
Punamäki, R.-L., Qouta, S. R., & Sarraj, E. El.
(2010). Nature of torture, PTSD, and somatic
symptoms among political ex-prisoners. Journal
of Traumatic Stress, 23(4), 532–536.
Reyes, H. (2007). The worst scars are in the mind:
psychological torture. International Review of the
Red Cross, 89(867), 591–617. doi. org/10.1017/
Shaked-Schroer, N., Costanzo, M., Berger, D.E.,
(2015). Overlooking coerciveness – The impact of
interrogation techniques and guilt corroboration
on jurors’ judgments of coerciveness. Legal and
Criminological Psychology 20, pp. 68-80.
Türkiye İnsan Hakları Vakfı (Human Rights
Foundation of Turkey). (2019). Tedavi ve
Rehabilitasyon Merkezleri Raporu 2018
[Treatment and Rehabilitation Centres Report
UN General Assembly (UNGA). (1988). Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment. A/RES/43/173.
UN General Assembly (UNGA). (1998). Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court (last
amended 2010), 17 July 1998.
UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights (OHCHR). (1999/2004). Manual on the
Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment (‘Istanbul Protocol’). HR/P/PT/8/
United States Supreme Court. (2000). Dickerson v.
United States. 530 US 428.
United States Supreme Court of Oregon. (1977).
Oregon v. Mathiason. 424 US 492.
UNSRT. (1986). Report. E/CN.4/1986/15.
UNSRT. (1998). Report. E/CN.4/1998/38.
UNSRT. (2001). Report. A/56/156.
UNSRT. (2012). Report. A/67/279.
UNSRT. (2016). Report. A/71/298.
UNSRT. (2020). Report. A/HRC/40/59.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 Torture Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
We accept that some authors (e.g. government employees in some countries) are unable to transfer copyright. The Creative Commons Licence Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) covers both the Torture Journal and the IRCT web site. The publisher will not put any limitation on the personal freedom of the author to use material contained in the paper in other works which may be published, provided that acknowledgement is made to the original place of publication.