Accountability for Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Thematic Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture to GA76
In completing this questionnaire...
Ø please consider not only treaty law but, whenever appropriate, also custom and general principles of law, as well as interpretations provided in soft-law instruments and case law;
Ø please provide reasons or examples for your answers, and feel free to cross-reference your answers in case of overlap;
Ø please clarify whether your argument is based on existing international law (lex lata) or on your assessment of what the law "ought to be" (lex ferenda).
Please note that responses will be received and processed until 15 May 2021, and that no response or position taken will be nominally attributed.
Kindly send your contributions to: email@example.com.
Thank you in advance for your valuable contribution to the work of this mandate.
- Challenges to accountability: What are the most important legal, practical and other challenges that are conducive to the current worldwide accountability gap for torture and ill-treatment?
There are laws on the books which describe what is happening to victims of cyber torture in a general sense, such as:
- Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that:“No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
- Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home, or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
- Title 18 of United States Code, Section 242 states: “Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both…”
- The state of Michigan’s House bill Number 4514, Harmful Device law which states: “A person shall not manufacture, deliver, possess, transport, place, use, or release any of the following for an unlawful purpose: (a) A harmful biological substance or a harmful biological device. (b) A harmful chemical substance or a harmful chemical device. (c) A harmful radioactive material or a harmful radioactive device. (d) A harmful electronic or electromagnetic device. (2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) to (e), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both.”
- Massachusetts’ Law on the Use of Electronic Weapons, which states that: “No person shall possess a portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill, except: (1) a federal, state or municipal law enforcement officer, or member of a special reaction team in a state prison or designated special operations or tactical team in a county correctional facility, acting in the discharge of his official duties who has completed a training course approved by the secretary of public safety in the use of such a device or weapon designed to incapacitate temporarily; or (2) a supplier of such devices or weapons designed to incapacitate temporarily, if possession of the device or weapon is necessary to the supply or sale of the device or weapon within the scope of such sale or supply enterprise. No person shall sell or offer for sale such device or weapon, except to federal, state or municipal law enforcement agencies.”
- And the state of Maine’s 17-A §1004. CRIMINAL USE OF ELECTRONIC WEAPON law which states that: “Except as provided in subsection 4, a person is guilty of criminal use of an electronic weapon if the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly uses an electronic weapon upon any other person.”
These laws articulate the rights of cyber torture victims in a general sense, however more specificity is needed to entirely accommodate the circumstances in which victims of microwave (MW) and/or directed energy weapons (DEW) attacks find themselves. Many police officers are unaware of the technology involved and what techniques that would be needed to detect, apprehend, and prosecute abusers of MW and/or DEW’s.
There are anti-stalking laws in all 50 states in the US, however, these laws do not include victims of multiple stalker situations which is the case for most victims of cyber torture. Therefore, police and other law enforcement officers usually find that they cannot assist victims in these circumstances who may also be penalized further by officers who may decide to escort them to a mental facility.
In case law, here a couple of examples where institutionalized torture in the form of human experimentation was utilized, but ultimately the abusers were held accountable after a period of time.
- In 1988 the CIA paid Velma Orlikow and eight other plaintiffs (Orlikow v. United States, 682 F. Supp. 77 -D.D.C. 1988) a total of $750,000 for horrific mind control experiments which were conducted by Dr. Ewen Cameron at Allen Memorial Institute of McGill University in Canada.
- Then, in January, 2016, the Vietnam Veterans of America successfully sued the CIA, the Army, the Department of Defense et al in a case in pursuit of medical treatment for “injuries, disabilities or illnesses” suffered from human testing using more than 400 various chemical and biological substances such as LSD, mustard gas, sarin and BZ, during a period of five decades and involving tens of thousands of active duty personnel. Vietnam Veterans of America, et al. v. Central Intelligence Agency, et al. Case No. CV-09-0037-CW, U.S.D.C. (N.D. Cal. 2009)
In each of the above cases, the plaintiffs saw and knew their defendants, therefore the facts of the case could not be disputed. This is a great luxury, however, considering the situation for most cyber torture victims.
- Functions, forms and levels of accountability: Please identify, explain, distinguish or compare the different functions (e.g. punitive/reparative, or proactive/preventative etc.), forms (e.g. legal, political, economic or social etc.) and levels (e.g. individual, collective, institutional, State etc.) of accountability for torture and ill-treatment.
- One instance of systemic torture and abuse was the Abu Graib prison scandal where CBS News published a series of pictures in April of 2004 showing abhorrent human rights abuses that were happening at this US prison in Iraq. The pictures caused widespread international condemnation and outrage for the United States’ handling of prisoners of the Iraq war. The abuses involved physical and sexual abuse, torture, rape, sodomy, and murder.
In the aftermath of these revelations, the US department of Defense removed 17 officers and soldiers from duty. Eleven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault and battery.
The above are instances where media attention can drive accountability for victims of torture.
- Rights of victims: Who should be recognised as a victim of torture and illtreatment, and what are – or ought to be – victims’ procedural and substantive rights within accountability processes? Who else, if anyone, should be entitled to have access to and/or participate in accountability processes and mechanisms?
- As with physical torture and psychological torture, cyber torture victims or remote physical torture victims need much more recognition in this society as viable sufferers at the hands of criminal assailants. With the recent reporting of microwave weapons and directed energy weapons attacks upon the American diplomats to Cuba and China recently, cyber torture may now start to gain awareness and recognition in the general public. This is much-needed for victims who are suffering incomprehensibly in some cases which we feel must be addressed immediately.
- There needs to be greater awareness of the existence of those victimized by microwave and directed energy weapons attacks among police officers, city councilmembers, civil and human rights attorneys, the governments, local communities, community groups, as well as the general public.
- Recommendations: Based on your experience and/or analysis of accountability in (2) and (3) above, what are the most effective mechanisms / measures and/or good practices that can or should be taken to respond to the challenges you identified in (1) so as to ensure accountability for torture and ill-treatment worldwide?"
Our recommendations include:
- The UN, the governments, Local, state, and/or federal Legislation which addresses the issues of cyber torture victims.
- Training by law enforcement in detection, apprehension, and prosecution of perpetrators of microwave and directed energy weapons abuses.
- Reporting protocols for MW and DEW victims must be established so that victims would have access to protective measures which also act as a deterrent to future harm.
- Psychological remedies – for those suffering from PTSD. Many who are suffering from physical and psychological trauma imposed by the weaponry and other human rights violations of the abusers will need specialized psychological care to achieve restoration.
Thank you and Best Regards!
Creator of Peacepink.ning.com (about 5,000 members)
an online forum for the wordwide campaign ot stop the abuse and torture with remote electromagnetic mind control technologies and directed energy weapons.
Location: Shandong Province, China
(1) “Mind Control with Electromagnetic Frequency” presented by Soleilmavis at the E-leader conference held by Chinese American Scholars Association (USA) and Fudan University (China) in Shanghai, January 5-7,2015.
(2) Book ““Twelve Years in the Grave - Mind Control with Electromagnetic Spectrums, the Invisible Modern Concentration Camp,” provides the evidence of secret abuse and torture with voice-to-skull and remote electromagnetic mind control technologies.