A form of justice or human rights violation?

Torture under Article 5 of The Universal  Deceleration of Human Rights is prohibited. Stated "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"

 This form of international law is legally binding for all countries, however to what extent is this true? 

In this blog I will briefly explore two sides of torture, one; the use of torture for justice, the other; a human rights violation.

To begin with it is essential to point out that in some cases torture is used as a secretive method of justice (especially in cases of the ticking time bomb theory). 

Lets say for instance, an individual has planted a device to cause maximum damage to the public. This individual has been arrested and is being questioned by Police Officals. The defendant fails to comply with the questions resulting in failure of retaining information about the location of the device. What is best cause of action?Torture? Is it right to interrogate and torture an individual for the safety and greater good of society? 

One would assume so, hurting the individual would mean he/she would reveal the location of the device, confess to the crimes committed and the world would be a little better to live in (for a while until something else goes wrong). 

Lets switch the thought process: How certain can one be that the defendant is the prime suspect, maybe he matches a similar description given and/or was just simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. It could even be that the defendent may confess to crimes as result of being tortured. In some cases defendents are forced to sign documents that are written in a language they have no knowledge about. 

Some have and are being tortured (as you read) for the fact that they are suspects, some havent even been through a trial; some prisioned and tortured for many years for a crime unknown to them. Some prisoners that are tortured on a regular basis have also been given the authority to leave due to a non existing conviction and trial but are unable to leave (Guantanamo Bay suspects).

So what impact does Article 5 have of on the world? Does it mean one can torture a suspect if it is beneficial to society or does it mean; under any given circumstance torture is not a form of punishment/interrogation to be used. 

Clearly the ticking time bomb theory is an exception. If the use of torture brings the world to safety then surely it could be justifiable, but then a human has no right to violate or disregard another humans right of freedom against the use of torture.

Now its for you to decide which you think is the appropriate side of the argument. 

Extradition

So, we all know the concept of Extradition.. (If you don't, here it is) Extradition involves sending the criminal to the country of which (s)he has committed the crime, in order to be put on trial and punished. This is ordered through International treaties and Conventions (such as the US Constitution).

Extradition is a base for some cases of torture. However as there are pro's and con's to almost everything, it is the same concept here.

Looking at two terrorism related cases- Abu Qatada and Babar Ahmed:

Abu Qatada- charged for terrorism crimes in Jordon, Theresa May has battled with the Courts to send Qatada back to Jordon: in present day (29/03/2013) his extradition has been blocked... Why???

Babar Ahmed: imprisoned for 8 years without trial in the UK, USA wants him for terror activities and the result = success in extradition.

Evidence obtained under torture is prohibited under the Universal Deceleration on Human Rights (UDHR) yet States with high authority such as the USA can extradite and use torture to obtain evidence.

Clearly the UDHR is only a set of rules once broken has no punishment, so is there any need for international legislation?? I personally dont think you should have outdated rules 'trying' to govern the world when they clearly are not being followed.

A summary of torture in the modern world

Torture has been a significant human rights issues since it's existence. History has used torture as a mechanism to prosecute the accused by obtaining confessions. Modern day has Universal law in place to stop States engaging in the use of torture. Modern day consists of advanced technology and science, helping State law enforcement agencies to track and prosecute defendants. However, the use of torture is still existent.

Modern day torture is used to defeat the 'War on Terror' allowing State agencies to use torture against individuals to confess to terrorism acts. From evidence adapted in the case of the 'Tipton Three' and reports published by Amnesty International, it has become evident that the West is using torture to prosecute innocent civilians of acts which they have no connection. The pressure of the West in defeating the war on terror has become so important that they are using such brutality to win.

Not only in cases of terrorism but also in every day life, torture has become an issue. The Independent has reported torture against children in Egypt (article dated Wednesday 20th February 2013). Approximately 400 children have been unlawfully detained during protests and tortured in Gabal Ahmar camp in eastern Cairo. Under dictatorship, torture tends to be used if an individual does not comply with the government rules.

This all comes down to the effectiveness of Universal binding law (Universal Declaration on Human Rights) which under Article 5 states "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" so why does it exist? Are dictators and elite States in the illusion that they are excluded from international law on torture?

This brings us to international law enforcement and punishment. The use of torture on one is prohibited in accordance to international laws and treaties. Yet little is done to eliminate torture within the international dimension and little is done to prosecute State leaders when evidence of torture under their regime comes to light. The UN highly condemns the use of torture but fails to eliminate the use.

I maybe wrong in saying that little is being done to eliminate the use of torture, it is not the job of NGO's to make States realise that they are violating ones human rights? But they should treat torture cases as they would a murder case. The level of seriousness of prosecuting and eliminating torture needs an increase, but how are States going to realise that no-one has to right to torture another???