Page 56 - ประมวลสรุปความรู้เกี่ยวกับพิธีสารอิสตันบูลและพิธีสารมินนิโซตา

ISTANBUL PROTOCOL I. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LEGAL NORMS AND STANDARDS

law and that all acts of torture – and attempts to other measures designed to eliminate liability for
commit torture – are punishable by severe penalties. serious human rights violations, including torture,
as such provisions are intended to prevent the
64. Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to investigation and punishment of persons responsible
Prevent and Punish Torture provides that States for such violations and are prohibited as violations
are required to conduct an immediate and proper of non-derogable provisions of international human
investigation into any allegation that torture has rights law. 102 Furthermore, the Court has found that
occurred within their jurisdiction and guarantee that the execution of sentences in cases of serious human
any person making an accusation of having been rights violations is an integral part of the victims’
subjected to torture within such jurisdiction has the rights to access justice and that the international
right to an impartial examination of the case. The obligation to punish those responsible for serious
duty to investigate arises as soon as State authorities human rights violations, including torture, “cannot
become aware of allegations or grounds to believe be unduly affected or become illusory during the
98
that torture has occurred. The Inter-American execution of the sentence that imposed the sanction, in
Commission on Human Rights has reiterated that the accordance with the principle of proportionality”. 103
principles of independence, impartiality, competence, The Court has also established principles to ensure
diligence, meticulousness and promptness should the integrity of the investigation into and the
be the hallmarks of an investigation of alleged acts punishment of those responsible for human rights
99
of torture. Additionally, the investigation should violations in transitional justice systems. 104
take into consideration the international rules for
documenting and interpreting elements of forensic 67. In its jurisprudence, the Inter-American Court of
evidence regarding the commission of acts of torture. 100 Human Rights has cited the Istanbul Protocol in
several decisions involving torture and ill-treatment,
65. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights to call attention to the necessity of adopting
has addressed the necessity of investigating appropriate legal frameworks and strengthening
claims of violations of the American Convention institutional capacities that will facilitate the effective
on Human Rights. In Velásquez Rodríguez investigation of grave human rights violations. 105
v. Honduras, the Court stated that:
68. Articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Inter-American
The State is obligated to investigate every Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture establish
situation involving a violation of the rights universal jurisdiction for the crime of torture,
protected by the Convention. If the State meaning that States are obligated to either extradite
apparatus acts in such a way that the violation suspects or conduct investigations and, if appropriate,
goes unpunished and the victim’s full enjoyment criminal prosecutions, regardless of the nationality
of such rights is not restored as soon as possible, of the suspect and whether the crime was committed
the State has failed to comply with its duty to within the State’s jurisdiction. The Inter-American
ensure the free and full exercise of those rights Court of Human Rights has considered that seeking
to the persons within its jurisdiction. 101 extradition of suspects for the crime of torture is an
obligation under customary international law. 106
66. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights
explicitly rejected the applicability of all provisions 69. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has also
on prescription (statutes of limitation), amnesty and stated that mere threats of resorting to behaviour

98 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Servellón-García et al. v. Honduras, Judgment, 21 September 2006, para. 119.
99 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Democratic Institutions, the Rule of Law and Human Rights in Venezuela: Country Report (2017), para. 251; and Gross Human
Rights Violations in the Context of Social Protests in Nicaragua (2018), para. 192. See also Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Human Rights of
Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas (2011), para. 345; and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Bueno-Alves v. Argentina, Judgment, 11 May 2007, para. 108.
100 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, Judgment, 26 September 2006, para. 93.
101 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velasquez-Rodriguez v. Honduras, Judgment, 29 July 1988, para. 176.
102 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Barrios Altos v. Peru, Judgment, 14 March 2001, para. 41.
103 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Barrios Altos and La Cantuta v. Peru, Monitoring Decision, 30 May 2018, para. 47 (unofficial translation from Spanish).
104 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Barrios Altos v. Peru, para. 41.
105 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, Judgment, 25 November 2006, para. 326; González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, Judgment,
16 November 2009, paras. 502 and 542; Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, Judgment, 31 August 2010, paras. 239–243; and Vélez Loor v. Panama, Judgment, 23
November 2010, para. 270.
106 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, La Cantuta v. Peru, Judgment, 29 November 2006, paras. 159–160. See also Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Goiburú et al.
v. Paraguay, Judgment, 22 September 2006, paras. 128–132.

14