Page 57 - ประมวลสรุปความรู้เกี่ยวกับพิธีสารอิสตันบูลและพิธีสารมินนิโซตา

I. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LEGAL NORMS AND STANDARDS ISTANBUL PROTOCOL

prohibited by article 5 of the American Convention the State to provide a satisfactory and convincing
on Human Rights, if sufficiently real and imminent, explanation of what occurred and disprove the
may amount to torture. Moreover, psychological and allegations regarding its responsibility. 115
moral suffering must also be considered when assessing
whether article 5 has been violated. 107 Accordingly, the 72. In numerous decisions, the Inter-American Court of
Court has determined that being held incommunicado Human Rights has acknowledged that certain persons
or in prolonged isolation constitutes cruel and in situations of vulnerability face a greater risk of
inhuman treatment. 108 The Court has also stipulated human rights abuses and torture and thus are entitled
that a person may only be held in incommunicado to certain protections and effective remedies that take
detention under exceptional circumstances; and, into account their individual circumstances. 116 The
even then, the State must guarantee detainees’ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has
minimum and non-derogable rights and uphold their noted that independent monitoring, public inspection
right to question the lawfulness of the detention and access to sites in which individuals are deprived
and to effective defence during detention. 109 In of their liberty are effective in preventing torture. 117
several cases, the Court relied on the definition
of torture in article 1 of the Convention against 73. To protect more vulnerable detainees, including
Torture to establish that torture was inflicted. 110 persons who have been illegally detained, the Inter-
American Court of Human Rights has found that
70. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has police detention centres must meet certain minimum
also held that State authorities must not classify or standards that ensure, among other things, the
withhold information about human rights violations right to humane treatment and to be treated with
from judicial or administrative authorities on respect for their dignity. 118 The Court has also
grounds of public interest, official secrets or national established that States must regulate and supervise
security. Furthermore, the Court has strongly both public and private health-care facilities under
111
condemned any participation of State military their jurisdiction in order to protect the life and
personnel in investigations and prosecutions of human integrity of all persons within their jurisdiction. 119
rights violations; instead, such investigations and
prosecutions should be conducted by civilian entities. 112 74. The issue of torture and ill-treatment was
addressed by the Inter-American Commission on
71. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has Human Rights in the Principles and Best Practices
also established that the State is responsible for the on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty
right to humane treatment of any individual under in the Americas in 2008 and in an extensive report
its custody. 113 In that regard, a presumption exists on the human rights of persons deprived of their
that the State is responsible for the torture, cruel, liberty in the Americas in 2011. Among other
inhuman or degrading treatment suffered by a person safeguards, the Principles guarantee all persons
under the custody of State agents if the authorities deprived of their liberty the right to lodge complaints
have not carried out a serious investigation of the about acts of torture, whether individuals do so
facts. 114 Therefore, the burden of proof falls upon on their own behalf or on behalf of others. 120

107 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, para. 279.
108 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Godínez-Cruz v. Honduras, Judgment, 20 January 1989, para. 164. See also Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Luis
Lizardo Cabrera v. Dominican Republic, Case 10.832, Report No. 35/96, 19 February 1998, paras. 86–87.
109 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Suárez-Rosero v. Ecuador, Judgment, 12 November 1997, para. 51.
110 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, Judgment, 27 November 2003, para. 90.
111 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v. Brazil, Judgment, 24 November 2010, para. 202.
112 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, Judgment, 30 August 2010, paras. 172 and 176.
113 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Baldeón-García v. Peru, Judgment, 6 April 2006, para. 120; Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil, Judgment, 4 July 2006, para. 138; and López
Álvarez v. Honduras, Judgment, 1 February 2006, paras. 104–106.
114 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, para. 273.
115 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, Judgment, 7 June 2003, para. 111; and Baldeón-García v. Peru, para. 120.
116 See, for example, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, Judgment, 4 July 2006, para. 103; Baldeón-García v. Peru, para. 119; and Furlan and
family v. Argentina, Judgment, 31 August 2012, paras. 284–288.
117 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Truth, Justice and Reparation: Colombia Country Report (2013), para. 1121.
118 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Baldeón-García v. Peru, para. 119; Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil, paras. 125–130; Furlan and family v. Argentina, paras. 131–132; and
Bulacio v. Argentina, Judgment, 8 September 2003, para. 132.
119 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, para. 141.
120 Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, principle V.

15