physiotherapy.
See Psychology of torture for psychological impact, and aftermath, of torture. 酷刑的后果远远超出立即疼痛。许多受害者遭受创伤后应激障碍(PTSD),包括症状,如倒叙(或者侵入性思想),严重焦虑、失眠、恶梦、抑郁、记忆力衰退。酷刑受害者经常感到内疚和羞愧,引发了他们忍受的屈辱。很多觉得自己背叛了自己或他们的朋友和家人。所有这些症状是正常的人类对异常的反应和不人道的待遇。[137年]
组织像免于酷刑和中心酷刑的受害者试图帮助幸存者的酷刑获得医疗和获得法医医疗证据获得政治庇护在一个安全的国家和/或起诉肇事者。
酷刑通常很难证明,尤其是在一些时间之间传递事件和医学检查,或者当者免于起诉。世界各地许多者使用方法设计最大的心理影响而只留下最小物理痕迹。医疗和人权组织全球合作生产伊斯坦布尔的协议文档旨在概述常见的折磨方法,酷刑,后果和法医检验技术。通常死亡折磨尸检所示是由于“自然原因”像心脏病,炎症,或栓塞由于极端压力.[138年] 幸存者,酷刑经常导致持久的精神和身体健康问题。
可以广泛的物理问题,如。性传播疾病,musculo-skeletal问题,脑损伤、创伤后癫痫和痴呆或慢性疼痛综合征。
心理健康问题也同样广泛,常见的是创伤后应激障碍,抑郁和焦虑性障碍。精神无精打采,擦除的主体间性、拒绝它赋予的曲解机构,无法忍受欲望构成了核心功能的创伤后精神的折磨。[139年]
最可怕的,棘手的,遗留的酷刑杀害欲望——也就是说,出于好奇,冲动的连接,它赋予的相互关系的能力,对不确定性或模糊事物的承受力和矛盾心理。对于这些患者来说,知道另一个思想是难以忍受的。与另一个是无关紧要的。他们禁锢在出生(e)在他们的创伤,他们擦除延续的意义,再现毁灭的动力通过施受虐,自恋,偏执,或self-deadening模式有关,对规避相互关系,动员他们的机构,善良,希望和连接。总之,他们住死亡证明。正是这种反常的机构和欲望,构成受伤最深的创伤后,和侵犯人权的最看不见的和有害的。[139年]
2007年8月19日美国心理学协会(APA)投票禁止参与、干预制止,并报告参与审讯手段的各种酷刑,包括“使用模拟执行、模拟溺水、性和宗教的羞辱,压力位置或睡眠不足”,以及“剥削囚犯的恐惧症,改变思想的药物的使用,罩上强迫脱光,用狗吓唬囚犯,让囚犯在极热和极冷,物理攻击和威胁使用这些技术对囚犯或一个囚犯的家人。”[140年]
然而,APA拒绝了更强”决议,试图禁止所有心理学家参与,无论直接或间接,在任何审讯在美国拘留中心以外的外国囚犯或拘留公民正常的合法渠道。”,决议把APA与美国医学协会和美国精神病协会等专业限制参与设置直接病人护理。APA呼应了布什政府的谴责隔离,剥夺睡眠,感官剥夺或到过度刺激只有当他们可能会造成持久伤害。
精神病治疗torture-related医疗问题,可能需要一个广泛的专业知识和专业经验。常见的治疗方法是精神药物治疗,如。SSRI抗抑郁药,咨询,认知行为疗法,家庭系统治疗和物理治疗. 看到心理的折磨心理影响和后果,酷刑。
酷刑的定义[编辑]
第一条公约的酷刑的定义是:
行为的严重疼痛或痛苦,无论是身体或精神,是故意造成的对一个人从他获得或第三人等目的,信息或忏悔,惩罚他的行为或第三人承诺的嫌疑,或恐吓或强迫他或第三人,或基于任何理由任何形式的歧视,这种疼痛或痛苦时造成的煽动或同意或默许政府官员或其他的人表演,在官方的能力。它不包括疼痛或痛苦只从,固有的或偶然的合法的制裁。 ——禁止酷刑公约第1.1条
“固有的或偶然的合法制裁”保持模糊和广泛。它很难确定什么制裁是“固有的或偶然的合法制裁”在一个特定的法律制度和什么不是。公约的起草者们既不提供任何这样的决心也没有标准定义的??语???发现的性质不同于一个法律系统到另一个,他们会引起严重的公约缔约国之间的纠纷。建议参考,这些规则将会使问题更加复杂,因为它会赋予规则表面的法律约束力。这允许缔约国通过国内法律,允许酷刑的行为,他们认为在合法的制裁条款。然而,最广泛采用的合法制裁条款的解释是,它是指授权的制裁国际法。按照这个解释,只有授权的制裁国际法将属于这个排斥。合法制裁条款的解释没有应用程序和范围由作者广泛讨论,历史学家和学者。[5]
行为缺乏酷刑仍可能构成残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇在第十六条。 禁止酷刑和残酷和有辱人格的待遇[编辑]
第二条禁止酷刑公约,并要求各方采取有效措施,防止在其管辖的任何领土。这项禁令是绝对和non-derogable。“没有任何特殊情况”[6]可能被调用来证明酷刑,包括战争、战争威胁、内部政局不稳,公共应急,恐怖主义行为,暴力犯罪,或任何形式的武装冲突。[7]酷刑不能合理的保护公共安全或预防紧急情况.[7]既可以是合理的高级军官的命令或公共官员.[8]禁止酷刑下适用于所有地区的有效管辖,在其有效控制和保护所有的人,不论国籍或控制是如何被运用。[7]公约的生效以来,这绝对禁止已成为接受的原则国际习惯法.[7]
因为往往很难区分残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇和折磨,委员会认为第十六条禁止的同样绝对和non-derogable等治疗。[7]
我制定具体的义务部分的其他文章旨在实现这个绝对禁止通过阻止,调查和惩罚行为的折磨。[7]
禁止refoulement[编辑]
第三条禁止政党返回,引渡或refouling任何人状态”,我们有实质性的理由相信他会被遭受酷刑”的危险。[9]禁止酷刑委员会举行了,这种危险必须评估不仅对初始接收状态,而且国家的人可能随后驱逐,或引渡回来。[10] Main provisions[edit] Definition of torture[edit]
Article 1 of the Convention 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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. — Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1
The words \in or incidental to lawful sanctions\remain vague and very broad. It is extremely difficult to determine what sanctions are 'inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions' in a particular legal system and what are not. The drafters of the Convention neither provided any criteria for making such determination nor did it define the terms. The nature of the findings would so differ from one legal system to another that they would give rise to serious disputes among the Parties to the Convention. It was suggested that the reference to such rules would make the issue more complicated, for it would endow the rules with a semblance of legal binding force. This allows state parties to pass domestic laws that permit acts of torture that they believe are
within the lawful sanctions clause. However, the most widely adopted interpretation of the lawful sanctions clause is that it refers to sanctions authorized by international law. Pursuant to this interpretation, only sanctions that are authorized by international law will fall within this exclusion. The interpretation of the lawful sanctions clause leaves no scope of application and is widely debated by authors, historians, and scholars alike.[5]
Actions which fall short of torture may still constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 16.
Ban on torture and cruel and degrading treatment[edit]
Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. \threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.[7] Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies.[7] Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials.[8] The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised.[7] Since the convention's entry into force, this absolute prohibition has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.[7]
Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, the Committee regards Article 16's prohibition of such treatment as similarly absolute and non-derogable.[7]
The other articles of part I lay out specific obligations intended to implement this absolute prohibition by preventing, investigating and punishing acts of torture.[7]
Ban on refoulement[edit]
Article 3 prohibits parties from returning, extraditing or refouling any person to a state \there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture\the initial receiving state, but also to states to which the person may be subsequently expelled, returned or extradited.[10]