Group 8: International Human Rights
Linking Torture and Discrimination in the Context of Police (Mis-)Conduct
The prohibition of torture and other forms of ill treatment and the prohibition of discrimination are sacrosanct under international law. The prohibition of torture exists in human rights law, humanitarian law, criminal law, and as a peremptory norm. Prohibitions on discrimination and adverse distinction naturally flow from the shared, common dignity central to international law– and so have been codified in every major human rights treaty and extensively discussed in interpretive literature.
The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment (CAT) recognizes that torture and other forms of ill treatment can be motivated by discrimination. That is, pain or suffering that are intentionally inflicted for a discriminatory reason constitutes torture. Less clear from CAT and other treaties’ texts and interpretive efforts are other understandings of the relationship between torture and other ill treatment and discrimination. When do torture or ill treatment, in the disparate ways they are enacted, constitute discrimination, even in the absence the kind of discriminatory intent that CAT anticipates? When does discrimination and the suffering it entails then constitute torture?
This paper will review the relevant law around torture and discrimination. It will then argue that, in addition to the discrimination-as-motivating-torture relationship set out in CAT, there are two further ways to understand the relationship between torture and discrimination: torture as discrimination, and discrimination as torture. Throughout, the paper will concretize these rights violations through examples drawn from police mistreatment and misconduct that amounts to torture or other ill treatment.
State Capture as an Enabler of Human Trafficking: Ecuador’s Furukawa Plantaciones
The Furukawa Plantaciones case on labor trafficking in Ecuador has been lauded by many for holding both a corporation and the State accountable for human rights violations. A closer examination of the outcome of the case, however, begs the question: has anyone really been held accountable? Have any practices actually changed? Despite growing literature on state capture as well as the seemingly obvious relationship between corrupt practices and human trafficking, there is a gap in current research examining the connection between state capture and human trafficking. This paper uses the Furukawa Plantaciones case in Ecuador to examine how state capture acts as an enabling factor for human trafficking. In doing so, it becomes clear that state capture practices allow both corporate and state actors to escape accountability for human trafficking despite the promulgation of laws and cases that allegedly crack down on traffickers. By understanding the link between state capture and accountability for trafficking, practitioners will be better able to address clients’ harms and seek remedies that strike at the roots of the human rights violations related to trafficking.