In an interview on Torture

Your first choice actually looks at the importance of this international law, The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law by Nigel Rodley.

He is one of those four European jurists that I mentioned who held the position of special rapporteur on torture some years back. I particularly selected his book because it is the ultimate exposition of international law standards with regards to the treatment of prisoners in detention centres as well as in penitentiaries.

But in reality, when you are on the ground, do you see that these laws are actually being adhered to?

Well, they are adhered to in different degrees and in different intensities in different parts of the world. The fact that they are law doesn’t automatically mean that they are respected. That doesn’t diminish the importance of considering them binding obligations of the state. And even the states that commit torture will never admit to doing it, which shows that they recognise that they are violating an international obligation.

But even supposedly enlightened countries, such as the US and UK, are still justifying the use of what many would say amounts to torture. What do you think of that?

I think that has been a very important setback in the last 10 years. The fact that important countries when confronted with a serious threat think that they can find exceptions to their obligations is obviously an important setback for our efforts to abolish torture in our time. Particularly because less powerful states look to countries like the US and the UK and think, “If they can get away with it, why not us?” But, I also feel very strongly that in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom the reaction of civil society and democratic thought has been very strong and has pointed out that no matter how people in government want to redefine these obligations the fact that the United States and perhaps the United Kingdom violate the standards doesn’t mean that they diminish the very absolute prohibition of torture.

So at least it is encouraging that the civilians in those countries seem to have their moral compass in the right place?

I think so and it is not only the civilians. In the case of the United States at least, a lot of the criticism of the practice of the Bush administration came directly from the military. These were people who had experience in the military courts and also in action on the battlefields and they have been the most powerful voices in showing that this is not the proper way to fight terrorism.