Top 10 Things You Wanted to Know About UNCAT but Were Afraid to Ask

There’s been talk recently of  George W. Bush’s admission in his new memoir that he personally approved the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and whether the U.N. Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) obligates the U.S. government to prosecute him for the crime of torture.

Decide for yourself: read the Q & A below and let us know what YOU think in the comment section.

1. What is the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT)?

The acronym UNCAT is a shortened version of The United Nations Convention against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The UNCAT is an international human rights instrument which mandates a global prohibition on torture and creates an instrument to monitor governments and hold them to account.

2. So, what does the UNCAT actually do?

The UNCAT defines what is meant by torture, bans the use of torture, cruel and degrading treatment, bans refoulement (the extradition of individuals at risk to countries where they may face torture), requires governments to actively prevent torture, requires governments to investigate torture allegations, requires governments to provide remedy to torture victims and establishes an appropriate UN committee to deal with issues of redress, monitoring and investigation.

3. What is meant by torture?

The UNCAT defines torture as, “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”

4. What does it require governments to do?

The UNCAT requires governments to take effective and meaningful measures to prevent torture in each state’s jurisdiction. Specifically, it requires that states criminalize torture in domestic law, establish jurisdiction over acts of torture that occur within the state, make torture an extraditable offense, investigate any allegations of torture within the state and provide effective and enforceable remedy to torture victims.

5. Does it apply to the United States?

Yes, though conditionally. The United States signed onto the treaty on April 18, 1988 and ratified the treaty on October 21, 1994. The United States made reservations to Article 16 and Article 30 (1) of the treaty. With respect to Article 16, the US narrowed the definition of torture by stating that it would only seek to prevent cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment as these terms’ definitions were understood in the context of the 5th, 8th and 14th amendments of the US Constitution. The US also made a reservation to Article 30 (1)’s arbitration clause. The US additionally announced interpretative understandings and issued a declaration. Regardless of these measures, the crux of the UNCAT’s meaning applies to and is binding on the US government and the United States government still has a responsibility to prohibit use of torture.

6. How does it relate to the Constitution?

The UNCAT relates to the 5th amendment, 8th amendment and 14th amendment of the United States Constitution. These amendments respectively ensure due process and fairness in criminal proceedings, prohibit cruel and unusual punishment and protect rights against state infringement by requiring due process and equal protection under the law for all persons.

7. What other laws, domestic or international, relate to US adherence to UNCAT?

In addition to the United States Constitution, torture violates domestic law Title 18 of the US Code, § 2340. Internationally, torture is banned by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, all of which the United States is party to. Within the context of an armed conflict, torture is considered a war crime under international criminal law (depending on the context, a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, a violation of the laws and customs of war or, when carried out in a widespread or systematic manner, a crime against humanity) and the US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

8. How many countries have ratified the UNCAT?

As of April 2010, there were 77 signatories to and 147 ratifications by states parties to the UNCAT.

9. When did the UNCAT “enter into force”?

The UNCAT “entered into force” (a.k.a. acquired legal effect) for the initial twenty signatories as of June 26, 1987, thirty days after the 20th country deposited the instrument of their ratification or accession to the Secretary General of the UN in accordance with Article 27 (1). For parties which ratify the treaty after this date, the UNCAT theoretically enters into force thirty days after similar proceedings. However, UNCAT is now widely considered to have attained the status of customary international law and thus is binding on all states whether they are signatories of the treaty or not.

10. What bodies does the UNCAT create?

The UNCAT creates the independent Committee Against Torture (CAT). This committee is tasked with monitoring treaty implementation, promoting treaty implementation and investigating torture allegations. All parties to the UNCAT are required to submit periodic reviews to this body for examination and recommendation.

11. (Bonus Question) What Can I Do to Ensure Accountability for U.S. Torture?

Take action here.

Alex Severson contributed to this post

AIUSA welcomes a lively and courteous discussion that follow our Community Guidelines. Comments are not pre-screened before they post but AIUSA reserves the right to remove any comments violating our guidelines.

24 thoughts on “Top 10 Things You Wanted to Know About UNCAT but Were Afraid to Ask

  1. I know this is kinda nit-picky, but ummm…spell check woulda caught it—

    Accoutnability

    We know the brain thinks faster than the fingers can type, but yeah…spell check is your friend.

  2. Since when has the US obeyed international law? It'll be a cold day in Hell before W gets prosecuted for anything. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it, but he won't be.

  3. @ Scott: UNCAT is binding US law, aside from the reservations noted in #5. But surely waterboarding falls under cruel or unusual treatment!

  4. Thank you for posting this information. One important correction though: The US is not a party to the American Convention on Human Rights!!! 😉

  5. Yes, it is binding law, but that unfortunatly does not mean that Bush will be prosecuted in any way. The U.S. form of extraordinary renditions that came about after 9/11 is criminal as well, but no one has ever been held accountable for that either.

    To explain, extraordinary renditions are not a knew thing, the problem is that after 9/11 extraordinary renditions became secret. Also evidence used to be needed but after 9/11 a suspicion was sufficient.

    An example is the El-Masri case. Khalid El-Masri is a German citizen who was kidnapped, flown to Afghanistan, interrogated and allegedly tortured by the CIA for several months as a part of the War on Terror. Afterwards he was released. This extrajudicial detention was apparently due to a misunderstanding that arose concerning the similarity of the spelling of El-Masri's name with the spelling of suspected terrorist al-Masri.

  6. I know this is kinda nit-picky, but ummm…spell check woulda caught it—

    Accoutnability

    We know the brain thinks faster than the fingers can type, but yeah…spell check is your friend.

  7. Since when has the US obeyed international law? It’ll be a cold day in Hell before W gets prosecuted for anything. I’m not saying he doesn’t deserve it, but he won’t be.

  8. @ Scott: UNCAT is binding US law, aside from the reservations noted in #5. But surely waterboarding falls under cruel or unusual treatment!

  9. Thank you for posting this information. One important correction though: The US is not a party to the American Convention on Human Rights!!! 😉

  10. Yes, it is binding law, but that unfortunatly does not mean that Bush will be prosecuted in any way. The U.S. form of extraordinary renditions that came about after 9/11 is criminal as well, but no one has ever been held accountable for that either.

    To explain, extraordinary renditions are not a knew thing, the problem is that after 9/11 extraordinary renditions became secret. Also evidence used to be needed but after 9/11 a suspicion was sufficient.

    An example is the El-Masri case. Khalid El-Masri is a German citizen who was kidnapped, flown to Afghanistan, interrogated and allegedly tortured by the CIA for several months as a part of the War on Terror. Afterwards he was released. This extrajudicial detention was apparently due to a misunderstanding that arose concerning the similarity of the spelling of El-Masri’s name with the spelling of suspected terrorist al-Masri.

  11. Waterboarding IS some form of torture.
    Mr Bush SHOULD therefore be prosecuted and I hope he will.

  12. Waterboarding IS some form of torture.
    Mr Bush SHOULD therefore be prosecuted and I hope he will.

  13. No US President will ever allow a previous US President to be prosecuted for war crimes.

    Just forget about this dreaming and stop being silly. It ain't ever gonna happen.

    Every US President, Democrat or Republican, Bush or Obama, whomever, has had to authorize during their presidency what could be technically considered war crimes. The Obama Administration is itself is currently conducting a massive Predator drone war killing thousands of people a year, mostly civilian bystanders. This could be called "reckless disregard for civilian casualties" which is a Geneva Convention war crime. Amnesty has also many times in the past said that even non-civilians killed in this way are victims of "illegal extra judicial executions", also a war crime.

    Thus Obama's Predator drone war also could technically constitute a war crime, every bit as much as G. W. Bush's torture authorization was. It is interesting to note here that in fact President Bush ordered canceled the Predator Drone war during the last two years of his administration because he felt the excessive civilian casualty rate made them counter-productive but one of President Obama's first acts of his presidency on January 20th, 2009 was to order the the Predator Drone war resumed full force knowing of the accidental civilian casualties that would obviously result.

    I am sure when President Obama took office he did not look forward to in effect authorizing the killing of thousands of civilians, elderly, women, children, but that in deed is what seems to have happened and President Obama has thankfully taken these difficult but necessary steps to defend America and the whole world from really bad people.

    So every US President, President Obama included, must fear allowing prosecution of a previous President for technical war crimes, as this would set a precedent where they themselves, when they eventual left office, could find their own selves being prosecuted for war crimes by the next future President to come after them.

  14. No US President will ever allow a previous US President to be prosecuted for war crimes.

    Just forget about this dreaming and stop being silly. It ain’t ever gonna happen.

    Every US President, Democrat or Republican, Bush or Obama, whomever, has had to authorize during their presidency what could be technically considered war crimes. The Obama Administration is itself is currently conducting a massive Predator drone war killing thousands of people a year, mostly civilian bystanders. This could be called “reckless disregard for civilian casualties” which is a Geneva Convention war crime. Amnesty has also many times in the past said that even non-civilians killed in this way are victims of “illegal extra judicial executions”, also a war crime.

    Thus Obama’s Predator drone war also could technically constitute a war crime, every bit as much as G. W. Bush’s torture authorization was. It is interesting to note here that in fact President Bush ordered canceled the Predator Drone war during the last two years of his administration because he felt the excessive civilian casualty rate made them counter-productive but one of President Obama’s first acts of his presidency on January 20th, 2009 was to order the the Predator Drone war resumed full force knowing of the accidental civilian casualties that would obviously result.

    I am sure when President Obama took office he did not look forward to in effect authorizing the killing of thousands of civilians, elderly, women, children, but that in deed is what seems to have happened and President Obama has thankfully taken these difficult but necessary steps to defend America and the whole world from really bad people.

    So every US President, President Obama included, must fear allowing prosecution of a previous President for technical war crimes, as this would set a precedent where they themselves, when they eventual left office, could find their own selves being prosecuted for war crimes by the next future President to come after them.

  15. if there is ever JUSTICE 4 all human beings.. he has to be prosecuted in thousands of crimes woRLDwide..

  16. Hi, I'd like to know if USA has signed Article 22 of the UNCAT. Also, is it possible to get a list of all nations who have signed article 22? This is the article that allows for the implementation of the Convention. Thanks.

Comments are closed.