Hello All,
I know that there is version of this repeal up for voting, but I don't think it will get enough votes due to various reasons. I would like to see if this repeal would be better. Any suggestions or help with this would be much appreciated. Thank you!
Ok Here It Is:
To the General Assembly,
1. Acknowledging that "‘Torture’ is defined as an act of intentionally inflicting pain, severe discomfort or suffering on a person for the purposes of intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or to extract information, confession or concession to demands from them, or any other person, where committed with the approval or assistance of a government official or person acting in such capacity."
1.a However noting that "severe discomfort" is too vague of a description to use.
1.b According to this, torture is only such when a government official, or someone acting as one, administers it. This is false.
2. Disagreeing that torture can be qualified as "confinement to dark quarters and or use of a hood during interrogation." It doesn't cause pain, or suffering.
3. Upset that "uncomfortable positions" and "stress positions" are defined as examples torture. This is just too vague of a description to use.
4. This statement: "Attempts to reduce physical or mental capacity, even where not causing pain or severe discomfort or suffering," contradicts what torture is. It goes against the first clause.
5. Stressing that clause #4 is flawed. A WA member nation cannot and should not ever be forced to keep criminals wanted in other nations.
6. Confused as to why Clauses #5, #6, and #8 are redundant. Clause #5 bans torture in the nations. Clause #6 bans requires nations to ban torture. Clause #8 says, "An order to commit torture is a manifestly illegal order." THIS WAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED in Clause #5.
7. Alarmed that "Member nations may not invoke extraordinary circumstances, such as armed conflict, state of emergency or civil unrest, to justify acts of torture."
8. Dismissing Clause #9 as being able to be valid, because it says, "persons having responsibility for persons facing interrogation... shall... not perform torture." According to Clause #1, "‘Torture’ is defined as an act of... severe discomfort... for the purposes of... interrogation." Therefore anyone who interrogates someone and causes discomfort is a torturer.
9. Disturbed that "severe discomfort" is torture.
10. Concerned that victims of torture need to be paid compensation by the government, and also recieve pre-paid medical treatment. "Victims of torture have the right to suitable compensation, including the coverage of all medical expenses incurred as a result of torture." If the government didn't commit the torture, it shouldn't have to pay.
Overall, Resolution #9 is too vague to be accepted for any longer. The terminology used is open-ended, and there are too many redundancies and contradictions. Therefore, the General Assembly of the World Assembly hereby repeals Resolution #9 "Prevention of Torture."




