Is There a Justification for Torture?

What is torture? What can be considered torture? Are there circumstances under which one could justify torturing individuals? Did you know that not only physical abuse of suspects but even blindfolding and sending a prisoner to solitary confinement can also be considered torture? If someone is accused of drug distribution, rape, or bombing, can public conscience remain silent in the face of their torture? This week on Taboo, attorney Hossein Reisi and contemporary history researcher Majid Tafreshi discuss this issue. Let's start by looking at what torture is. What can be classified as torture, and where should we refer to for this definition? The Convention Against Torture? Or is another definition going to be provided? Mr. Reisi, let's start the discussion with you. Hossein Reisi: Yes, torture is defined in various human rights documents, and there are different perspectives on it in law schools. However, from a general perspective derived from the 1984 Convention Against Torture and other documents like Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, we can provide a comprehensive definition of torture, which is the infliction of any kind of physical, sexual, psychological, or emotional pain and suffering on any individual with the intent to exert pressure, obtain confessions, punish, or compel someone to do or not do something by themselves, their relatives, or anyone else in general. Now, if we want to continue the discussion with this definition, Mr. Tafreshi, you might want to take a look at this definition. But the next question will be, what is generally perceived as torture? Well, physical torture is what comes to mind. But is it only physical torture? Many prisoners in Iran have spoken about psychological torture, or even solitary confinement is considered torture, or blindfolding the accused; these are occurrences that happen. Should society only be sensitive to physical torture? Majid Tafreshi: If we look at it from a historical perspective, the further back we go, the simpler torture is, and its physical aspect is more apparent and prominent. However, as we move forward, in countries that are known for the prevalence of torture, particularly in developing countries and especially in advanced countries, physical torture is gradually becoming less and less common because physical torture has visible consequences. Secondly, its long-term effects are less than psychological torture, and thirdly, it does not have the complexities of emotional or psychological torture or other forms. Naturally, as humanity progresses, physical torture is becoming less prevalent, while other dimensions are expanding, becoming more complex, and multilayered. Therefore, today we face much less physical torture than fifty, sixty, or a hundred years ago, but other forms of torture are becoming more complex and less visible. Mr. Tafreshi, I want to continue the discussion with you on the topic that I don't think anyone would say that torture is a positive thing and that we should pursue and carry it out. Despite the widespread negative opinion about it, we see that torture exists and is practiced. Why do you think that is? Tafreshi: Almost everyone involved in political, social, and cultural affairs, or many of them, and the vast majority believe that torture is unethical and illegal. Leaving aside those who are currently on Mr. Trump's team and have deemed torture necessary in the past and present, or in some developing countries, in general, those who are not in power think this way. But when these individuals come to power, for various reasons, they try to justify actions that others consider torture and say that these are not torture, and then they also justify those that they themselves acknowledge are torture for governmental and political interests. And of course, the dominant view is that if we detain individuals who are dangerous and harmful to national interests, we must exert pressure on them; otherwise, they won't speak. This very dialogue was also present at the beginning of the revolution in the Islamic Republic's Assembly of Experts in 1979, where Mr. Beheshti said that torture should never occur, and others said, well, if we don't torture them and put them under pressure, they won't talk. In any case, when they are not in power, everyone believes torture is bad, but when they come to power, everyone tries to justify torture in some way. Mr. Reisi, you heard Mr. Tafreshi's remarks. Torture is an issue that perhaps cannot be limited to one or several countries, but if we specifically talk about Iran, are there cases where we could consider torture permissible? For example, for the collective benefit or the safety of individuals? Reisi: No, absolutely not. The Iranian Constitution does not permit torture in any way. Article 38 of the Constitution absolutely prohibits torture for obtaining confessions and compelling individuals to speak and testify. However, where torture is clearly present, and the system does not deny it, is punishment. We have the punishment of flogging, which the Islamic Republic claims is its law. We have the punishment of amputation of hands and feet, which it claims is its law. These are considered torture by definition and are, in fact, inhumane, and under no circumstances, for any sacred matter, public interest, or any highly significant issue, can torture be justified. The reason for this prohibition is that anything that diminishes the human dignity of a prisoner, an accused person, or any human being is inhumane. Neither any religion nor law nor any politician has the right to justify it in any way. Mr. Tafreshi, Mr. Reisi's comments focus on respecting the dignity and humanity of prisoners. Now, with the recent events in Iran and the revelations made by Mr. Ismail Bakhtiari, a worker from Haft Tappeh Sugarcane Agro-Industry, about his torture in the prisons of the Islamic Republic, the discussion of torture is something we hear a lot these days in social media and Iranian society. How much is this dignity and humanity considered for prisoners? There are cases where lawyers talk about even non-political prisoners being treated vindictively and tortured to extract confessions regarding theft, for example. Do you think there is any place in the Iranian judicial system for this dignity that prohibits torture? Tafreshi: First of all, the statements of this imprisoned worker who has claimed he was tortured and has called for investigation have had significant domestic and international repercussions, but this is not the first time a tortured prisoner has made such revelations or protested about being tortured. What was novel this time was that public opinion and government officials are following up on the matter and have not tried to cover it up. Previously, if someone made a revelation, they would either be silenced or covered up or tried to deflect blame and say it wasn't us. The second point is that the practice of torture in Iran is not a new issue. I found a document that I think I published once, which is astonishing. After the coup of August 19, 1953, the British Embassy's chargé d'affaires met with General Teymur Bakhtiar, the military commander of Tehran, and asked him about rumors that they had heard about bears being thrown at opponents and members of the Tudeh Party who were in prisons, meaning they were confronted with bears to extract confessions or to scare them. Bakhtiar's response is astonishing. He says, no, you can be sure that these few cases were limited and will not be repeated; he does not say it didn't happen, and this has continued. The issue of amputation, of course, has not reached zero in Iran, but such punishments have been continuously reduced, and hopefully, they will never be carried out. However, regarding non-political crimes, this issue has always existed in Iranian awareness. The prevalence of non-political prisoners is greater, and of course, in every part of the world, non-political prisoners are fewer than political prisoners. Very well. Mr. Reisi, Mr. Tafreshi mentioned in his remarks that torture is an old issue. Yes, it is. Perhaps this question arises: does it help the matter to say that it has existed in the past? Tafreshi: No, I said this because the public conscience and the rulers at least claim to oppose this issue; this is an important event, and we should appreciate it. First of all, I want to know how much this issue is related to the power of social media, which has given ordinary individuals and citizens a platform to inform. And also, I don't think in past regimes in Iran, if torture existed, anyone would have claimed that yes, we torture and it's a good thing. Certainly, officials have always maintained that torture should not exist, or if it has, we will investigate it, and it is not clear how much this investigation takes place. Mr. Reisi, perhaps it would be good for you to explain here. Reisi: You see, the difference is that in 1962, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted, and in 1968, Iran joined it during the previous regime and that same year passed the law abolishing flogging, so from then on, flogging would no longer be carried out in Iran. But immediately after the revolution, from 1982, when the law of ta'zirat was passed, we see that flogging as an Islamic punishment was immediately introduced into our laws, and it is still widely prevalent today, and now the amputation of hands and feet has decreased in number, but it still exists. We still have instances where eye-for-an-eye punishments have been carried out. Acid has been poured into eyes. None of these are justifiable. Regarding non-political crimes, there are more of them because their number is greater, and they have less oversight. They have less voice. I have had clients who were children and were tortured, and I filed complaints, but ultimately I was threatened! Or I complained to the prosecutor himself, and I was threatened. Regarding ordinary crimes. In the case of political crimes and political prisoners, torture is applied in various ways through intimidation, accusation, and case fabrication, and through coordination between the police, security forces, and the judiciary [torture is applied]. This coordination is very dangerous, especially in security courts, which are usually within or near prisons, and any issue that they want to address in a swift and special manner occurs through torture. Many interrogators turn a blind eye to torture. They see that a detainee who has come from detention or prison has not slept at all; his eyes are red; they see that he has been kept awake all night, and confessions have been obtained, and now he has been brought in... or sometimes, unfortunately, they call from detention that the interrogator should come quickly to obtain confessions. Because we have beaten him... although they do not say we have beaten him, but they do beat him, prepare him, and the interrogator goes to the detention center. It may be through medication. Or it may be through prolonged solitary confinement. This is a systematic issue. On the surface, officials deny it and send a committee to investigate, but serious actions do not take place. This structure is not reformed. A drug-addicted prisoner has been brought to detention; he has been mistreated, not provided with proper food and treatment, and has died in detention. They even took his body and disposed of it and deleted his records. This shows that part of the structure wants to carry out this work and turns a blind eye. Mr. Tafreshi, returning to you, I want to talk about this structural issue that Mr. Reisi emphasizes and believes that even recent events cannot change this structure. Do you think there is systematic torture in Iran, or as some insist, are these isolated cases? Tafreshi: That being hopeless and saying that any gradual changes are useless, in my opinion, does not help solve the problem. In any case, this public opinion and the media's and statesmen's attention to changes and follow-up, even if it is superficial, even if it is real, I do not want to read intentions, but in any case, it should be appreciated and should not be rejected. The scope and volume of these cases and their intensity compared to previous years, compared to the decades of the fifties, sixties, and seventies, have significantly decreased. Both their number and their volume and intensity. That Mr. Reisi said that flogging has not existed in Iran since 1962, I think is legally and on paper correct, but the memories and experiences of prisoners and even the torturers themselves show that this has not been the case, especially in the years 1950 to 1955, torture was rampant in Iran at the highest possible level, and flogging was also one of the completely normal and daily practices. Even now, if in the sixties it was said that bombings and assassinations were happening and there were foreign forces, and we had to act against them like they did, and they justified torture, and for example, in the sixties, a torture investigation committee would go to prisons following the order of the revolutionary leaders to investigate the widespread issue of "torture," and they themselves were the ones who supervised torture in prisons, now it cannot be turned this way, and as you rightly said, the pressure from social media and public opinion inside and outside prevents this.