Preventing Torture An Operational Guide for National Human Rights Institutions • there is a known threat • the attack is imminent • the attack will kill a large number of people • the person in custody is the perpetrator of the attack • the person has information that will prevent the attack • only torturing the person will provide the information in time to prevent the attack. In real life situations, however, one or more of these assumptions is always invalid. On the last point, for example, the scenario assumes that the suspect will provide valuable information under torture. In reality, torture is inherently unreliable for obtaining accurate information. Professional interrogators have repeatedly emphasized the point that interrogation can be conducted much more effectively without the use of torture. The assumptions that underpin the “ticking bomb” argument can also, by extension, be used to try and justify torture in a wider range of situations. For instance, we might ask ourselves if our reaction to the “ticking bomb” scenario would be different if we were not sure whether the suspect was actually connected with the bomb plot, or whether s/he was in fact connected to terrorism at all; whether the suspect had any reliable information about the threat; if the threat was several days or a week away; or whether the threat was even real. The scenario also contains some hidden assumptions that should be defused. • The motive of the torturer is to get the necessary information, with the genuine intention of saving lives. However, even if the torturer did begin with the genuine motive of obtaining information, torture corrupts the perpetrator. This is an inherent part of the act of torture. Further, the assumption that the objective is purely to gather information is too simplistic. In real life situations other motivations and emotions, such as anger, punishment and the exercise of power, can take over. • It is an isolated situation, not to be repeated regularly. However, it is part of the nature of torture that any authorization of such acts invariably leads to a slippery slope, where the use of torture becomes more widespread within the institution.17 3. Other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment As outlined previously, for an act to be deemed torture under the Convention against Torture, it should include three cumulative elements: • the intentional infliction of severe mental or physical suffering • by a public official, who is directly or indirectly involved • for a specific purpose. This definition raises the question of how to classify and respond to acts that fall short of satisfying all three criteria. For instance, what about an act that is not inflicted “intentionally” but occurs because of negligence? What about an act that does not occur for a specific purpose? What about an act that inflicts pain or suffering not considered “severe”? In these situations the prohibition of other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment may apply. As with torture, this prohibition is also absolute and non-derogable. 17 Defusing the Ticking Bomb Scenario: Why we must say NO to torture, always; Association for the Prevention of Torture; 2007; pp. 13–16. 14 | Chapter 1: What is torture?