Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 13

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  torture
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
100%
EN
The paper deals with the relation between utilitarianism and moral intuitions in the context of philosophical justification of human rights. The author responds to Martin Hapla’s effort to show the harmony of these three categories and offers some (counter-)examples that partially complicate the idea of such harmony. In the center of the author’s attention is the question of sacrifice of the innocent. He points particularly to the issue of civilian immunity in time of war and also the issue of inadmissibility of torture. He tries to explain the difference between these phenomena, which are covered by absolute rights nowadays, and other phenomena which represent “ordinary” human rights situations. From this difference, he draws a conclusion about the utilitarian permissibility of exceptional legal sacrifices of innocents, which, however, is not in a complete accordance with our moral intuition.
EN
The purpose of this study is to present the results of research conducted among officers and employees of the Prison Service regarding the knowledge and opinions of representatives of this professional group on the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture (hereinafter also KMPT, Mechanism).
EN
Despite the universal condemnation of torture, the prevention of appalling practices of ill-treatment has not been achieved in the 21st century. The repugnant practice persists and even increases because of the disingenuous interpretations of the definition of torture and the lack of effective enforcement mechanisms. Notwithstanding the cogency of the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture, particularly regarding the treatment of detainees, nowadays corporal punishment as a punitive measure is arguably a recurring phenomenon in several former British colonies and in States where the legal system is based on Islamic Sharia. While several legally binding universal and regional instruments prohibit torture in general terms, with no specific definition, the scope of the Convention against Torture’s definition was narrowed down by the lawful sanctions clause. The universality of the definition has been undermined by the inclusion of this clause, since different States have different practices when it comes to lawful and unlawful sanctions. The intractable problem of the interpretation of the definition by the State-Parties and the lack of effective control mechanisms has perennially posed the greatest challenge with respect to compliance with International Human Rights Law. In light of the above, this article seeks to critically dissect the lawful sanctions clause within the context of corporal punishment.
EN
The author analyzes the institution of a town executioner in Przemyśl in the second half of the sixteenth and in the seventeenth century. The executioner’s duties involved subjecting the accused to torture and executing death sentences as well as performing sanitary and cleansing activities, treating injured and sick prisoners and running a legal house of prostitution. The basic source of information on town executioners are municipal accounts preserved in the files on Przemyśl in the local archives. The text includes an appendix, “The earnings of a town executioner in Przemyśl in the years 1600, 1602, 1608-1609, 1645, 1684”.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

GÄFGEN V. GERMANY. CASE STUDY

75%
EN
The article focuses on the case of Gäfgen v. Germany, which con-cerns the restrictions imposed on police offi cers who work on cases involving terror and violence posing a risk to human life, and on the ones who have to make decisions protecting victims’ lives. The choice of measures serving the protection of the highest value, i.e. human life, is not easy. At the same time, police offi cers are assessed in terms of criminal law as regards the protection of the basic human rights enjoyed by perpetrators who pose a risk to other people’s lives. The case of Gäfgen v. Germany regards the choice of values, and the criminal liability of police offi cers, connected with thereof, as well as the problem of the admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of the law in criminal proceedings, and the limitations of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
EN
Secret detentions, renditions, torture and other forms of cruel treatment cannot be considered as humane treatment in any situation. A State that performs such acts can obviously be held responsible, as can any other States which aid, assist, facilitate, and offer their airports or prisons. All these violations of international law were connected with the American and European counter-terrorism actions in the context of their “global war on terror”. Detaining prisoners without the consent of a competent court, without informing their families, interrogating them, torturing them and other examples of using “enhanced techniques” amount to a violation of international law and can lead to either the legal responsibility of the state, the criminal responsibility of state officials, or both. This article analyzes the scope of Poland’s potential responsibility for violations of both international and domestic law connected with the question of the detainment of American secret prisoners on Polish soil.
EN
The article focuses on the protection against ill-treatment, as stipulated in the Amendment VIII to the United States Constitution in relation to the similar guarantee provided by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Using the case-law of the U.S. courts, the author analyses the meaning of words used in the Amendment VIII („cruel and unusual punishment”) in relation to their counterpart in the Convention („torture” and „inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”). The use of particular words in the Amendment VIII causes a limitation of the protection against ill-treatment in the U.S. to criminal proceedings. In the subsequent part the author discusses two typical instances of use of the Amendment VIII: disproportional punishment and overstepping limits of criminalisation. The problem of compensation for ill-treatment is also described. The analysis of the aforementioned issues leads to the conclusion that the U.S. legal system offers a lower standard of protection against ill-treatment than its European counterpart.
EN
In his monograph The Hangman and His Workshop in Silesia, Upper Lusatia, and Kladsko County from the Beginning of the 16th to the Mid – 19th Century Daniel Wojtucki presents the profession of executioner. Having analysed historical sources, the author comprehensively characterizes the work of the executioner in the broad social context. He describes the profession on the background of the executioner’s family and presents a common approach to such a job. Particularly worth mentioning were some of the extraneous activities that the executioner took up and the collaborators with whom he cooperated. According to legal aspects, the author described the procedure for execution of a sentence as well as tools used in the executioner’s work. As an appendix, the author attached biographies of various executioners.
EN
The research objective is to analyze the limits of proportionality of actions taken by police officers in criminal proceedings against detainees. The analysis covers cases of improper treatment of persons detained by police officers and questioned at police stations. The study attempts to estimate the number of cases in which criminal proceedings were instituted against police officers under Article 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with inhuman or degrading treatment of police officers. The author intends to answer the question what is the scale of abuses in the activity of police officers and whether the charges against them made by persons against whom a specific intervention was undertaken are justified. The aim of the research is to verify whether the currently existing penal-procedural systems fully protect citizens against violation of their right to freedom and legitimate interests as a result of the activities of procedural bodies. The author’s assumption is to check whether the control and repression measures taken with a view to strengthening security imply a threat to fundamental human rights through disproportionately large possibilities to introduce restrictions and restrictions on freedom. The research issues outlined by the author influence the use of the following research methods: formal and dogmatic, content analysis and statistical method.
PL
Celem badawczym jest analiza granic proporcjonalności działań podejmowanych przez funkcjonariuszy policji w postępowaniu karnym przeciwko osobom zatrzymanym. Analizie poddano przypadki niewłaściwego traktowania osób zatrzymanych przez funkcjonariuszy policji oraz przesłuchiwanych na komisariatach policji. W badaniach podjęto próbę oszacowania liczby spraw, w których wszczęto postępowanie karne przeciwko funkcjonariuszom policji z art. 246 k.k. w związku z nieludzkim lub poniżającym traktowaniem. Autorka zamierza odpowiedzieć na pytanie, jaka jest skala nadużyć w działalności funkcjonariuszy policji oraz czy zasadne są zarzuty formułowane pod ich adresem przez osoby, wobec których podjęta została określona interwencja. Celem badań jest zweryfikowanie, czy obecnie istniejące systemy karnoprocesowe zabezpieczają w pełni obywateli przed naruszeniem ich prawa do wolności oraz słusznych interesów w wyniku działań organów procesowych. Założeniem autorki jest sprawdzenie, czy środki kontrolno-represyjne, podejmowane z myślą o wzmocnieniu bezpieczeństwa, implikują zagrożenie podstawowych praw człowieka poprzez nieproporcjonalnie duże możliwości wprowadzania restrykcji i ograniczeń wolności. Zakreślona w publikacji problematyka badawcza wpływa na wykorzystanie następujących metod badawczych: formalno-dogmatycznej, analizy treści oraz metody statystycznej.
EN
The article offers a detailed analysis of the different arguments against torture of suspects as they were raised by the Italian Enlightenment philosopher Cesare Beccaria in his treatise On crimes an punishments (1764). The treatise had a massive influence on the contemporary intellectual elite, as well as on concrete legislators in various European countries. The passage, in which Beccaria opposes torture, belongs among the most quoted ones within the entire treatise. The article first briefly recapitulates the evolution of torture in the known history. The main part of the text is then focused on the analysis of Beccaria’s different arguments against torture. The unacceptability of torture is first closely related to the presumption of innocence – a person who is yet to be considered innocent cannot according to Beccaria be justly caused any physical harm.Most importantly, torture is then presented as an unreliable instrument that doesn’t give an accurate account of factual truth, but merely an account of the suspect’s physical strength. Torture is subject to critique also because it creates unjustifiable inequality between citizens.Finally, the practice of torture is considered dangerous also because it gives citizens an inappropriate message about the desirable values. In its final section the article then deals with the question, whether the prohibition of torture with all its procedural consequences should be absolute (such was Beccaria’s view), or whether there may occur exceptional cases when it is appropriate – it refers both to relevant texts of legal and moral philosophy and the judicature of the European Court of Human Rights.
CS
Článek nabízí podrobnou analýzu argumentů proti mučení podezřelých pachatelů, jak je ve svém traktátu O zločinech a trestech (1764) vznesl italský osvícenec Cesare Beccaria. Toto dílo se bezprostředně po svém vydání těšilo velkému vlivu jak na soudobou intelektuální elitu, tak i na konkrétní zákonodárce v řadě evropských zemí. Pasáž, v níž Beccaria z rozličných důvodů odmítá do té doby stále ještě rozšířenou praxi tortury, přitom patří v rámci jeho díla k těm nejcitovanějším. Text nejdříve stručně rekapituluje vývoj problematiky mučení ve známých dějinách. Ve stěžejní části pak analyzuje jednotlivé argumenty, které Beccaria proti tzv. předběžné i následné tortuře ve svém díle uvádí. Nepřípustnost tortury je tu takto nejprve dána do souvislosti s principem presumpce neviny – občan, na kterého se zatím hledí jako na nevinného, nemůže být podle Beccarii vystaven fyzickému utrpení. Mučení je však v Traktátu především představeno jako nespolehlivý instrument, který spíše než o skutkové pravdě vypovídá o fyzické síle podezřelého a zakládá neodůvodněnou nerovnost mezi podezřelými. Pozornost je kromě toho věnována i hodnotově-sociologickému argumentu, podle nějž je mučení třeba odmítnout proto, že dává občanům nebezpečnou zprávu o žádoucích hodnotách. V závěrečném oddílu se pak text s odkazem na relevantní sekundární literaturu i judikaturu ESLP zabývá otázkou, zda by měl být zákaz mučení skutečně absolutní (taková byla Beccariova představa), a to včetně všech jeho konsekvencí pro trestní proces, nebo zda se je naopak možné k tortuře ve výjimečných případech uchýlit
EN
Poland has been accused of participation in the extraordinary rendition program established by the United States after the September 11, 2001 attacks. It is believed that a secret CIA detention facility operated on the Polish territory, where terrorist suspects were transferred, detained and interrogated with the use of torture. Currently, Poland has found itself in a unique situation, since, unlike in other countries, criminal investigation into renditions and human right violations is still pending. Serious doubts have arisen, however, as to the diligence of the proceedings. The case was incomprehensibly prolonged by shifting the investigation to different prosecutors. Its proper conduct was hindered due to state secrecy and national security provisions, which have covered the entire investigation from the beginning. This article argues that Polish judicial authorities, along with the government, should undertake all actions aiming at explaining the truth about extraordinary rendition and seeking accountability for human rights infringement. Otherwise, Poland may face legal responsibility for violating the European Convention on Human Rights. This scenario becomes very probable, since one of the Guantanamo prisoners has already lodged a complaint against Poland with the European Court of Human Rights.
PL
Artykuł dotyczy pobytu polskich zesłańców politycznych na najdalej wysuniętej na wschód, azjatyckiej części Rosji w latach 80. i 90. XIX w. Życie więźniów pokazano na przykładzie Edmunda Płoskiego, jednego z przywódców partii Proletariat, który za swoją działalność polityczną został skazany na 16 lat katorgi na Sachalinie. Bazę źródłową niniejszego artykułu stanowią pozostawione przez niego, dotąd nieznane, wspomnienia z kilkuletniego pobytu na kresach imperium rosyjskiego.
EN
The article focuses on a stay of Polish political exiles in the far East, in the Asian side of Russia in the 80’s and the 90’s of the nineteenth century. A life of Edmund Płoski, one of the leaders of the Proletariat party, is given as an example of a life led by the exile. Płoski was sentenced to 16 years of penal servitude in Sakhalin for his political actions. The source basis consists of his previously unpublished memoirs written during his stay at the edge of Russian Empire.
PL
We współczesnych państwach demokratycznych stosowanie tortur jest całkowicie za-bronione. Zakaz ten ma bezwzględny charakter i wynika z przepisów konstytucji, pra-wa międzynarodowego i europejskiego. W artykule przedstawiono analizę absolutne-go charakteru zakazu stosowania tortur i problemu dopuszczalności jego ograniczenia wobec terrorystów. Autor wskazuje, iż zakaz stosowania tortur może budzić wątpliwo-ści w świetle ziszczenia się tzw. scenariusza tykającej bomby, tj. ujęcia terrorysty, któ-ry odmawia udzielania informacji, gdzie jest podłożona bomba zagrażająca zdrowiu i życiu innych osób. Analiza przepisów Konstytucji RP w ocenie autora nie prowadzi do konstatacji, iż art. 40 (zakaz stosowania tortur) ma absolutny charakter i może on yć ograniczony w formie ustawy przy równoczesnym spełnieniu przesłanek z art. 31 ust. 3 Konstytucji RP.Wiążące Rzeczypospolitą Polską umowy międzynarodowe zobowiązują państwo polskie do bezwzględnego przestrzegania zakazu stosowania tortur. Przepisy trakta-tów nie zawierają postanowień, które umożliwiałby wyłączenie lub ograniczenie bez-względnego charakteru tej klauzuli. W świetle powyższego należy stwierdzić, że o ile teoretycznie w świetle postanowień polskiej konstytucji możliwe byłoby uchwalenie ustawy ograniczającej zakaz stosowania tortur, o tyle taki akt zawsze sprzeczny byłby z postanowieniami prawa międzynarodowego i europejskiego. W konsekwencji pro-wadziłoby to również do naruszenia przepisów ustawy zasadniczej, w szczególności art. 7, 9 i 87
EN
Regulations of Constitutional, international and European law provide that torturing of human being if fully prohibited. There is no any reason that could justify such an act. The author of the article analyzes a problem if it is possible to legalize torture of a terro-rist to achieve information which are necessary to avoid a threat caused by this offender. In this situation – torture is the only way to get knowledge about a prepared act of terror.The author claims that provisions of Polish Constitution generally prohibit the use of torture However, the Constitution permits to establish legal exceptions to this restric-tion. The 31th article of the Constitution provides that each Constitutional right or free-dom may be limited by a statute when it is necessary in a democratic state for the pro-tection of its security or public order.The author also finds, that International Agreements binding upon Poland absolute-ly prohibit to use torture against terrorists. Treaties don’t include any provisions that would legalize any exceptions to this rule. The Republic of Poland is supposed to re-spect international law binding upon it. Summing up, organs of authority of the Repub-lic cannot be authorized to use torture against any offender in any situation. Especially the Parliament mustn’t establish any law act that allows to torture a human being be-cause it leads to a violation of binding international treaties.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.