首页> 外文期刊>Journal of International Criminal Justice >Implementing the UN Convention Definition of Torture in National Criminal Law (with Reference to the Special Case of Italy)
【24h】

Implementing the UN Convention Definition of Torture in National Criminal Law (with Reference to the Special Case of Italy)

机译:实施《联合国刑法》在国家刑法中的酷刑定义(参考意大利的特例)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The UN Committee against Torture considers the introduction of a distinct offence of torture in domestic law to be the most effective way of implementing Article 4 of the Convention against Torture. States parties which have introduced or are in the process of introducing a separately defined offence of torture have nonetheless frequently adopted definitions which are not entirely adequate in the light of the Convention. Problematic areas include ‘mental’ torture, torture for the purpose of discrimination, the role of state agents in the practice of torture and exceptions which are different from the ‘lawful sanctions’ exception provided for in the Convention itself. The case of Italy is a good illustration of the kind of obstacles which frequently arise when states are invited to introduce an ad hoc offence of torture. While maintaining that enacting a specific prohibition is not required by the Convention, the Italian Government has apparently accepted the idea that its introduction in Italian law would represent an improvement — without, in fact, doing much to achieve this result. As for the definitions of torture, the debate on the numerous bills providing for a specific offence of torture which have been tabled in the Italian Parliament during the last three parliamentary terms has focused on two main aspects. First, according to the majority of the members of Parliament (MP), in order to comply with the Constitutional principle of determinacy, the offence must be defined with reference to the conduct amounting to torture, i.e. to the type of act by which pain or suffering is inflicted on the victim. Some of the bills which define the act of torture do so in restrictive terms and are clearly not in conformity with Article 1 of the Convention. Second, opinions are divided with respect to the role of public officials (or other persons acting in an official capacity) in committing the crime of torture: while some MPs are in favour of introducing a reato proprio, i.e. a crime that only a public official can commit, others have proposed a common crime of torture. This, however, may be too similar to certain generic offences under Italian law that do not catch the essence of torture or insufficiently take into account its grave nature.
机译:联合国禁止酷刑委员会认为,在国内法中加入一种明显的酷刑罪行是执行《禁止酷刑公约》第四条的最有效方法。但是,已经提出或正在实行单独界定的酷刑罪行的缔约国,经常采用的定义根据《公约》并不完全足够。有问题的领域包括“精神”酷刑,以歧视为目的的酷刑,国家人员在酷刑实践中的作用以及与《公约》本身所规定的“合法制裁”例外不同的例外。意大利的案例很好地说明了当国家被邀请实行临时性酷刑罪行时经常出现的种种障碍。尽管坚持认为《公约》并不需要颁布具体的禁令,但意大利政府显然已经接受了将其引入意大利法律将代表一种进步的想法,而实际上并没有做很多事来取得这一结果。关于酷刑的定义,意大利议会在过去三个议会任期内提出的关于规定特定酷刑罪的众多法案的辩论集中在两个主要方面。首先,根据议会多数议员的要求,为了遵守宪法的确定性原则,必须参照构成酷刑的行为,即痛苦或痛苦的行为类型来界定犯罪。受害人遭受了痛苦。界定酷刑行为的某些法案是限制性条款,显然不符合《公约》第一条。第二,对于公职人员(或其他以公职身份行事的人)在实施酷刑罪方面的作用存在意见分歧:一些议员赞成实行无罪奉还,即仅公职人员犯下的罪行。可以实施,其他人则提出了共同的酷刑罪。但是,这可能与意大利法律中的某些普通罪行过于相似,这些罪行没有抓住酷刑的实质或没有充分考虑到酷刑的严重性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号