Torture has long been denounced by the international community; the need to protect citizens from abuse at the hands of the state is a principle enshrined in international law. One area where abuse is common is within the correctional system and as a result, there is a need for oversight in places of detention. The Optional Protocol to the UN’s Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) is an international human rights instrument that acts as a preventive measure to monitor all places of detention through regular visits. Supportive of the OPCAT since its adoption, Canada has considered signature/ratification since 2002 but has yet to commit. The purpose of this study is to identify factors that have led to a delay in Canada becoming State Party to the OPCAT despite adherence to the principles that this instrument embodies. A policy analysis framework was utilized to conduct stakeholder interviews and review government documents. The concept of agenda-setting received special attention and content analysis of media reports and a review of government legislative activity were conducted to provide insight into the prevalence of the issue on the public and political agendas. The author argues that while there are real challenges that policymakers must overcome, the absence of political leadership has resulted in stagnation in the decision-making process. As a result, the issue has disappeared from both the public and political agenda. In order for progress to be made, political will must be created and the impetus to act (‘re-setting the agenda’) must come from civil society in the absence of government engagement on this issue.

Torture has long been denounced by the international community; the need to protect citizens from abuse at the hands of the state is a principle enshrined in international law. One area where abuse is common is within the correctional system and as a result, there is a need for oversight in places of detention. The Optional Protocol to the UN’s Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) is an international human rights instrument that acts as a preventive measure to monitor all places of detention through regular visits. Supportive of the OPCAT since its adoption, Canada has considered signature/ratification since 2002 but has yet to commit. The purpose of this study is to identify factors that have led to a delay in Canada becoming State Party to the OPCAT despite adherence to the principles that this instrument embodies. A policy analysis framework was utilized to conduct stakeholder interviews and review government documents. The concept of agenda-setting received special attention and content analysis of media reports and a review of government legislative activity were conducted to provide insight into the prevalence of the issue on the public and political agendas. The author argues that while there are real challenges that policymakers must overcome, the absence of political leadership has resulted in stagnation in the decision-making process. As a result, the issue has disappeared from both the public and political agenda. In order for progress to be made, political will must be created and the impetus to act (‘re-setting the agenda’) must come from civil society in the absence of government engagement on this issue.

Torture has long been denounced by the international community; the need to protect citizens from abuse at the hands of the state is a principle enshrined in international law. One area where abuse is common is within the correctional system and as a result, there is a need for oversight in places of detention. The Optional Protocol to the UN’s Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) is an international human rights instrument that acts as a preventive measure to monitor all places of detention through regular visits. Supportive of the OPCAT since its adoption, Canada has considered signature/ratification since 2002 but has yet to commit. The purpose of this study is to identify factors that have led to a delay in Canada becoming State Party to the OPCAT despite adherence to the principles that this instrument embodies. A policy analysis framework was utilized to conduct stakeholder interviews and review government documents. The concept of agenda-setting received special attention and content analysis of media reports and a review of government legislative activity were conducted to provide insight into the prevalence of the issue on the public and political agendas. The author argues that while there are real challenges that policymakers must overcome, the absence of political leadership has resulted in stagnation in the decision-making process. As a result, the issue has disappeared from both the public and political agenda. In order for progress to be made, political will must be created and the impetus to act (‘re-setting the agenda’) must come from civil society in the absence of government engagement on this issue.

<p>I attempt to analyze South Africa&rsquo / s legal position pertaining to torture, in relation to the international legal framework. Since it has been established that torture and cruel inhuman and degrading treatment (CIDT) usually occur in situations where persons are deprived of personal liberty, I examine legislation, policies and practices applicable to specific places of detention, such as correctional centres, police custody, repatriation centers, mental health care facilities and child and youth care centers. I establish that although South Africa has ratified the UNCAT and is a signatory to the OPCAT, our legal system greatly lacks in structure and in mechanisms of enforcement, as far as the absolute prohibition and the prevention of torture and other forms of cruel and degrading treatment or punishment are concerned. I submit that South Africa has a special duty to eradicate torture, since many of its citizens and several of its political leaders are actually victims of torture, who suffered severe ill treatment under the apartheid regime. I argue that the South African legal system is sufficiently capable of adopting a zero-tolerance policy toward torture and to incorporate this with the general stance against crime. In many respects, South Africa is an example to other African countries and should strongly condemn all forms of human rights violations, especially torture, since acts of torture are often perpetrated by public officials who abuse their positions of authority. I conclude by making submissions and recommendations for law reform, in light of the obstacles encountered within a South African context.</p>

<p>I attempt to analyze South Africa&rsquo / s legal position pertaining to torture, in relation to the international legal framework. Since it has been established that torture and cruel inhuman and degrading treatment (CIDT) usually occur in situations where persons are deprived of personal liberty, I examine legislation, policies and practices applicable to specific places of detention, such as correctional centres, police custody, repatriation centers, mental health care facilities and child and youth care centers. I establish that although South Africa has ratified the UNCAT and is a signatory to the OPCAT, our legal system greatly lacks in structure and in mechanisms of enforcement, as far as the absolute prohibition and the prevention of torture and other forms of cruel and degrading treatment or punishment are concerned. I submit that South Africa has a special duty to eradicate torture, since many of its citizens and several of its political leaders are actually victims of torture, who suffered severe ill treatment under the apartheid regime. I argue that the South African legal system is sufficiently capable of adopting a zero-tolerance policy toward torture and to incorporate this with the general stance against crime. In many respects, South Africa is an example to other African countries and should strongly condemn all forms of human rights violations, especially torture, since acts of torture are often perpetrated by public officials who abuse their positions of authority. I conclude by making submissions and recommendations for law reform, in light of the obstacles encountered within a South African context.</p>

Magister Legum - LLM / I attempt to analyze South Africa's legal position pertaining to torture, in relation to the international legal framework. Since it has been established that torture and cruel inhuman and degrading treatment (CIDT) usually occur in situations where persons are deprived of personal liberty, I examine legislation, policies and practices applicable to specific places of detention, such as correctional centres, police custody, repatriation centers, mental health care facilities and child and youth care centers. I establish that although South Africa has ratified the UNCAT and is a signatory to the OPCAT, our legal system greatly lacks in structure and in mechanisms of enforcement, as far as the absolute prohibition and the prevention of torture and other forms of cruel and degrading treatment or punishment are concerned. I submit that South Africa has a special duty to eradicate torture, since many of its citizens and several of its political leaders are actually victims of torture, who suffered severe ill treatment under the apartheid regime. I argue that the South African legal system is sufficiently capable of adopting a zero-tolerance policy toward torture and to incorporate this with the general stance against crime. In many respects, South Africa is an example to other African countries and should strongly condemn all forms of human rights violations, especially torture, since acts of torture are often perpetrated by public officials who abuse their positions of authority. I conclude by making submissions and recommendations for law reform, in light of the obstacles encountered within a South African context. / South Africa