Preventing Torture An Operational Guide for National Human Rights Institutions - Updated Edition The absolute prohibition of torture is sometimes questioned by people on the grounds of security or counter-terrorism using a hypothetical “ticking bomb” scenario. This scenario involves the police capturing a terrorist whom they suspect has placed a bomb that is about to explode in the middle of a large city. The police believe that only torture will make the suspect disclose the information needed to prevent the deaths of thousands of people. The question is posed: “May the person be tortured?” This hypothetical situation operates by manipulating the emotional reactions of the audience and assumes that: • 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 are always invalid. 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 they were 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.27 Last but not least, the scenario assumes that the suspect will provide valuable information under torture. However, there is now large and growing scientific research showing that torture is ineffective in gathering accurate and reliable information and that rapport-based, non-coercive methods for interviewing are more effective for gathering information. Following the 2016 call by the Special Rapporteur on torture in his last report to the General Assembly,28 Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information gathering have been drafted,29 a process supported by several UN bodies.30 24 27 Association for the Prevention of Torture, Defusing the Ticking Bomb Scenario: Why we must say NO to torture, always (2007), pp. 13–16. 28 See Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture, A/71/298, 5 August 2016. 29 Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering”, May 2021 30 See Kyoto Declaration on advancing crime prevention, criminal justice and the rule of law: towards the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted on 7 March 2021; Resolution of the Human Rights Council, 23 March 2021, A/HRC/RES/46/15.