Dissertation (Ph.D) --Universität Frankfurt (Main), 2007. / Includes bibliographical references.

When African states were under colonisation, the colonial masters violated the rights of the African people &ndash / men, women and children- with impunity. The protection and promotion of human rights was, however, not high on the agenda of African countries at independence. This is reflected in the 1963 Charter of the Organisation of African Unity, which does not accord the promotion and protection of human rights the status they deserve. The preamble to the OAU Charter states that the states are to promote international cooperation having due regard to the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is against that background, that many African states violated human rights in the immediate post-independence era and continue to do so.<br /> More recently, African countries have taken steps to follow the world trends of the promotion and protection human rights. This has resulted in the adoption of the African Charter on Human and Peoples&rsquo / Rights (that has mechanisms of ensuring that human rights are promoted and protected in Africa), the desire to establish the African Court on Human and Peoples&rsquo / Rights, the adoption of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, the Grand Bay Declaration, the Protocol on the Rights of Women, and the adoption of the Constitutive Act of the African Union. The Constitutive Act of the African Union emphasises the protection and promotion of human rights.<br /> <br /> However, one scholar has doubts whether by adopting the Constitutive Act of the African Union African leaders were genuinely committed to the protection and promotion of human rights and he is of the view that the &lsquo / treaty could actually provide a cover for Africa&rsquo / s celebrated dictators to continue to perpetrate human rights abuses.&rsquo / <br /> <br /> Torture continues to feature as a serious human rights violation in Africa. This explains why during its 32nd ordinary session held in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission on Human and Peoples&rsquo / Rights (the African Commission) resolved to adopt the Guidelines and Measures for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Africa (The Robben Island Guidelines (RIG)). This is a new development in Africa aiming at &lsquo / operationalising&rsquo / article 5 of the African Charter. The RIG are phrased in a seemingly ambitious language but their implementation by the African States remains doubtful because they are not legally binding. This has to be viewed in the light of the fact that many African countries are States Parties to major regional and international human rights instruments but human rights violations still persist.

When African states were under colonisation, the colonial masters violated the rights of the African people &ndash / men, women and children- with impunity. The protection and promotion of human rights was, however, not high on the agenda of African countries at independence. This is reflected in the 1963 Charter of the Organisation of African Unity, which does not accord the promotion and protection of human rights the status they deserve. The preamble to the OAU Charter states that the states are to promote international cooperation having due regard to the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is against that background, that many African states violated human rights in the immediate post-independence era and continue to do so.<br /> More recently, African countries have taken steps to follow the world trends of the promotion and protection human rights. This has resulted in the adoption of the African Charter on Human and Peoples&rsquo / Rights (that has mechanisms of ensuring that human rights are promoted and protected in Africa), the desire to establish the African Court on Human and Peoples&rsquo / Rights, the adoption of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, the Grand Bay Declaration, the Protocol on the Rights of Women, and the adoption of the Constitutive Act of the African Union. The Constitutive Act of the African Union emphasises the protection and promotion of human rights.<br /> <br /> However, one scholar has doubts whether by adopting the Constitutive Act of the African Union African leaders were genuinely committed to the protection and promotion of human rights and he is of the view that the &lsquo / treaty could actually provide a cover for Africa&rsquo / s celebrated dictators to continue to perpetrate human rights abuses.&rsquo / <br /> <br /> Torture continues to feature as a serious human rights violation in Africa. This explains why during its 32nd ordinary session held in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission on Human and Peoples&rsquo / Rights (the African Commission) resolved to adopt the Guidelines and Measures for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Africa (The Robben Island Guidelines (RIG)). This is a new development in Africa aiming at &lsquo / operationalising&rsquo / article 5 of the African Charter. The RIG are phrased in a seemingly ambitious language but their implementation by the African States remains doubtful because they are not legally binding. This has to be viewed in the light of the fact that many African countries are States Parties to major regional and international human rights instruments but human rights violations still persist.

Magister Legum - LLM / South Africa

Is it an activity qualified as torture only when it is carried out for certain purposes? At the heart of the debate lies the question of whether or not corporal punishment is a form of torture. Aspects of corporal punishment remain acceptable according certain religious traditions. An example of this is found in traditional Islamic law, which has banned both torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, when used for the express purpose of obtaining confessions or information. In other circumstances, however, severe corporal punishment is acceptable in Islamic law. As a result, some Islamic states whose domestic law is rooted in traditional Islamic law, justify their use of torture by invoking Islamic traditions: they claim that corporal punishment is derived from God's will. These states tend to consider its use as lawful sanctions, and it is made legal under their domestic law. In this paper, Iran is studied as one such state.

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2015 / ENGLISH ABSTRACT : Universal jurisdiction is a relatively new concept in South Africa and a rather controversial concept in international criminal law. It is often discussed but rarely applied. Universal jurisdiction refers to the power of a State to punish certain crimes irrespective of where they were committed. Such crimes need not be connected to the State in question via the more traditional links of territory, nationality or direct State interest. These crimes are typically the worst crimes in international law such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The argument goes that those who commit these types of offences become hostis humani generis, or the enemies of all mankind. Therefore just like the pirate of old any nation that captures them is entitled to exercise its jurisdiction over them, on behalf of all mankind. But at the same time a feature and founding principle of international law is the sovereign equality of States. And under international law criminal jurisdiction is a prerogative of sovereign States. States have territorial jurisdiction over crimes committed within their territory, for having control over a territory is essentially what it means to be sovereign. This means that one nation’s attempt to exercise jurisdiction over persons that also fall under the jurisdiction of another nation could be perceived as the undermining of the second nation’s sovereignty. It is submitted that a proper understanding of universal jurisdiction internationally, and in South Africa, is vital because the Constitutional Court recently ordered South African authorities to investigate torture committed by Zimbabwean officials against Zimbabwean citizens that was allegedly committed in Zimbabwe. In other words the court ordered South African authorities to exercise universal jurisdiction over Zimbabwean officials. This thesis has as goal to critically examine the claims made, and authorities, cited in support of universal jurisdiction, as it is believed that these are usually theoretical and unpractical in nature. It is submitted that balance and a measure of realism is imperative to this debate. Contrary to popular opinion, it is submitted, that the history of international relations has not favored universal jurisdiction and there is no indication that this situation has fundamentally changed or will change in the near future. The thesis continues to examine, after a consideration of the likening of pirates to modern international criminals, the claim that old authorities such as Grotius and De Vattel provide support for universal jurisdiction. An analysis follows of the so-called ‘Lotus principle’, which is said to mean that any State may exercise jurisdiction over serious offences because there is no rule prohibiting it. The trials of German war criminals by the Allies, in the aftermath of WWII, is also said to have evidenced universal jurisdiction and this claim is critically examined. The same applies to the trial of Adolf Eichmann by Israel. The examination of provision for universal jurisdiction in international law continues when the jurisdictional provisions of the Genocide, War Crimes and Torture Conventions are examined and specifically applied to South Africa. The drafting process of these Conventions is carefully studied to understand the intention and circumstances prevalent at the time. In the process specific countries and international case law dealing with these Conventions is also considered. The jurisdictional triggers of the International Criminal Court are surveyed and it is questioned whether it provides for universal jurisdiction and whether it can then be said to support member States in exercising universal jurisdiction on its behalf. The research findings on universal jurisdiction and the ICC are finally applied to South Africa especially with reference to the Constitutional Court decision on the torture committed in Zimbabwe before conclusions are drawn as to what South Africa’s international and domestic duties entail. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING : Universele jurisdiksie is ‘n relatief nuwe konsep in Suid-Afrika en ‘n redelik kontroversiële konsep in internasionale strafreg. Dit word gereeld bespreek maar weinig toegepas. Universele jurisdiksie verwys na die bevoegdheid van ‘n Staat om sekere misdrywe te straf ongeag waar dit gepleeg is. Die betrokke Staat hoef nie enige van die traditionele verbindings soos territorialiteit, nationaliteit of direkte Staats-belang met sodanige misdrywe te hê nie. Hierdie misdade is tipies van die ergste misdade in internasionale reg, soos volksmoord, oorlogsmisdade en misdade teen die mensdom. Die argument is dat diegene wat hierdie tipe misdrywe pleeg hostis humanis generis, of vyande van die mensdom word. Daarom, net soos die seerower van ouds, is enige nasie, wat hulle in hegtenis neem geregtig om sy jurisdiksie, namens die ganse mensdom, oor hulle uit te oefen. Maar terselfde tyd is 'n kenmerk en grondbeginsel van internasionale reg die soewereine gelykheid van State. En onder internasionale reg is strafregtelike jurisdiksie 'n prerogatief van soewereine State. State het territoriale jurisdiksie oor misdade wat binne hul regsgebied gepleeg is, want om beheer oor 'n gebied uit te oefen is in wese wat soewerein wees behels. Dus kan een Staat se poging om jurisdiksie uit te oefen oor persone wat ook onder die jurisdiksie van 'n ander Staat val beskou word as die ondergrawing van die tweede Staat se soewereiniteit. Dit word aan die hand gedoen dat 'n behoorlike begrip van universele jurisdiksie, beide internasionaal, en in Suid-Afrika van uiterse belang is, veral omdat die Konstitionele Hof onlangs Suid-Afrikaanse owerhede beveel het dat marteling gepleeg in Zimbabwe, deur Zimbabwiese amptenare, teen Zimbabwiese burgers ondersoek moet word. Die hof het dus beveel dat die Suid-Afrikaanse owerhede universele jurisdiksie moet uitoefen oor Zimbabwiese amptenare. Hierdie tesis het ten doel om die gesag gewoonlik genoem, ter ondersteuning van universele jurisdiksie, krities te beskou, veral omdat dit gewoonlik teoreties en onprakties van aard blyk te wees. Hierdie tesis poog om ‘n noodsaaklike balans en mate van realisme tot die debat te voeg. Anders as wat algemeen aanvaar word ondersteun die geskiedenis van internasionale betrekkinge nie universele jurisdiksie nie en is daar ook geen aanduiding dat hierdie situasie onlangs fundamenteel verander het, of in die nabye toekoms sal verander nie. Die tesis beskou voorts, na 'n oorweging van die vergelyking van seerowers met moderne internasionale misdadigers, die bewering dat die ou skrywers soos De Groot en De Vattel hul steun verleen aan universele jurisdiksie. Hierna volg ‘n ontleding van die sogenaamde "Lotus beginsel", wat glo beteken dat enige Staat jurisdiksie mag uitoefen oor ernstige oortredings, bloot omdat daar geen reël is wat dit verbied nie. Die verhore van Duitse oorlogs misdadigers deur die Geallieerdes, na die Tweede Wêreldoorlog, word ook dikwels as bewys gebruik van universele jurisdiksie en word ook krities bekyk. Dieselfde geld vir die verhoor van Adolf Eichmann deur Israel. Die voorsiening gemaak vir universele jurisdiksie word verder ondersoek deur te let op die jurisdiksionele bepalings in die Konvensies oor volksmoord, oorlogsmisdade en marteling en dit word telkens op Suid-Afrika van toepassing gemaak. Daar word veral noukeurig gelet op die opstel proses van hierdie Konvensies ten einde te bepaal presies wat die bedoeling en heersende omstandighede toe was. In die proses word spesifieke lande en internasionale gesag wat met die Konvensies te make het oorweeg. Die Internasionale Strafhof, en of dit voorsiening vir universele jurisdiksie maak, word ondersoek ten einde te bepaal of dit enigsins gesê kan word dat die Hof lidstate aanmoedig om universele jurisdiksie te beoefen. Laastens word die bevindings oor universele jurisdiksie en die Internasionale Strafhof toegepas op Suid-Afrika, veral met verwysing na die Konstitusionele Hof beslissing oor die marteling in Zimbabwe, voordat gevolgtrekkings gemaak word oor wat presies Suid-Afrika se internasionale en plaaslike pligte behels.

Thesis (MPhil (Political Science))--University 2010. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This dissertation’s primary focus is why torture is used when torture is not an effective means of gathering intelligence. To answer this question the argument for the use of torture, commonly known as the ticking time bomb argument, is discussed. Due to psychological and physiological processes during torture interrogation it was found that torture cannot be relied upon to deliver truthful information. Torture was also found to adversely affect the institutions that are needed for its establishment. After torture has been found to be of no utility in terms of the appropriation of information the question of why torture is still used is answered by means of discussing societal dynamics as well as the political process surrounding torture. On the societal front it was found that American public opinion towards torture is ambivalent. The reason for this includes a host of socio-psychological factors such as the in-group out-group bias as well the War on Terror as a political ideology in its own right. The notion that anybody is likely to torture is also explored by means of discussing the Milgram’s Obedience Experiment as well as the Stanford Prison Experiment. On the political front the notion that the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were the work of a few bad apples is dispelled since it formed part of a deliberative political process that tried to make torture a legitimate foreign policy measure. The reason for the existence of this process is the failure of international and domestic checks and balances. On the international front U.S. unilateralism as foreign policy principle is cited as the reason for the ineffectiveness of international measures to stop torture. On the domestic front the permanent rally around the flag effect due to the permanent state of mobilization in the War on Terror is cited as the reason for the failure of domestic checks and balances. The lessons learnt from the research enables the creation of measures on how to stop torture even when it is found that the necessary political will is not present within the Obama administration. In the absence of political will it must be manufactured by means of the actions of civil society, the free press and the international community. It was found that the most effective means would be the creation of a committee of inquiry to create the political memory of the use of torture and how it was established. Additionally a memorial must be erected as well seeing that inquiries create political memories but they do not sustain it. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie tesis se fokus is om na te vors waarom marteling gebruik word as dit nie ‘n effektiewe wyse is om inligting in te win nie. Om hierdie vraagstuk te beantwoord word die argument vir die gebruik van marteling naamlik die tikkende-tydbom-argument bespreek. Asgevolg van sielkundige en fisiologiese prosesse tydens ondervragings wat gebruik maak van marteling kan daar nie op marteling staatgemaak word om die waarheid op te lewer nie. Dit was ook bevind dat marteling die instansies, wat nodig is vir die gebruik daarvan, op ‘n negatiewe wyse beïnvloed. Nadat daar vasgestel is dat marteling geen nutswaarde aangaande die inwinning van informasie bied nie word die vraagstuk waarom marteling steeds gebruik word beantwoord. Op die samelewingsvlak kan daar gestel word dat die Amerikaanse samelewing onseker is oor of marteling gebruik moet word al dan nie. Verskeie redes vir hierdie opinie word aangevoer waarvan die in-group out-group bias en die Oorlog teen Terreur as politieke ideologie slegs twee daarvan uitmaak. Dat enige persoon in staat is tot marteling onder die regte stel omstandighede word ook bespreek na aanleiding van die Milgram’s Obedience Experiement en die Stanford Prison Experiment. Op die politiese vlak is daar vasgestel dat die menseregteskendings in Abu Ghraib en Guantanamo Bay nie die werk was van slegs `n paar indiwidue was nie, maar deel uitmaak van ‘n doelbewuste politiese proses wat marteling as ‘n legitieme buitelandse beleidskwessie wil afmaak. Die rede waarom die beleidsproses bestaan kan toegeskryf word aan die mislukking van inter- en intranasionale wigte en teenwigte. Op die internasionale vlak kan daar gestel word dat die Verenigde State se unilateralistiese modus operandi die rede is vir die mislukking van internasionale maatreëls teen marteling. Op die intranasionale front kan daar gestel word dat die Amerikaanse publiek verkeer in ‘n permanent rally around the flagtoestand asgevolg van die permanent mobilisasie in die Oorlog teen Terreur. Uit die lesse wat geleer is uit die navorsing kan daadwerklike stappe gedoen word om die gebruik van marteling stop te sit alhoewel die Obama-administrasie se politiese wil ontbreek. Met die tekort aan politiese wil moet die politiese wil geskep word deur die burgerlik samelewing, the vrye pers asook die internasionale gemeenskap. Daar was gevind dat die mees effektiewe wyse om marteling stop te sit sal deurmiddel van ‘n kommissie van ondersoek wees. Die kommissie se doel sal wees om te bepaal hoe marteling tot stand gekom het en ‘n politiese herinnering te skep. Daar moet ook ‘n bykomende maatreël wees, naamlik die oprigting van ‘n monument aangesien kommissies van ondersoek politiese herinneringe skep maar nie in stand hou nie.

This limited scope dissertation deals with the protection against torture in international law. The mechanisms which have been established over the years to protect individuals against torture are analysed. The principles of international customary law dealing with torture and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) have been examined against the failure by States to honour their obligations under the Treaty and other legal normative rules. This required deep exploration of the definition of torture and how States can compromise the rule of law by manipulating the definition of torture as contemplated by the Treaty or other instruments. Examples from the former US government highlight the ways in which domestic laws can be used and are continued to be used to allow the use of torture. Measures by South Africa in joining the international community in the fight against torture are also discussed as a case study. While all efforts have been made by the South African system to adopt desirable frame works on the protection of individuals against torture, the lack of education on torture remains the down fall of the system. The dissertation clearly explains that universal jurisdiction applies in respect of torture and this is recognised by both treaty law and customary law. Indeed despite all the current measures in place the use of torture persists. The research clearly reveals that countries hide behind their own laws to perpetrate acts of torture. It is then recommended that proper implementation of the legal structures, informed of the objectives of the structures, is essential in completely eradicating torture. / Public, Constitutional, and International Law / LLM