|
Torture is banned in Zimbabwe
but there is, most unfortunately, a small minority in the country who think they
can get away with using torture as a short-cut to the professional techniques
used by the police.
There are four strong objections to torture. First and most important, it breaches a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution and in international treaties to which Zimbabwe is a signatory. Secondly, it does not produce much practical information. Most people, faced with torture, will admit to anything, whether they did it or not, and will try to figure out what sort of lies that the torturer wants to hear and then tell them. The information obtained is very dubious. Thirdly, it degrades the torturer. The victim is not degraded. The victim is hurt by the torturer but will receive the sympathy of all right-thinking people later and will even become some sort of a hero. The torturer will be regarded as some monster fit for the gutter. Finally, even if any remotely valuable evidence is obtained, it will be thrown out in any trial. Thus we might have the wrong person brought to court, because they have admitted something they did not do, or the right person going free because the evidence is tainted. Neither is desirable. Thus there are legal, moral and practical objections to torture. It is wrong and it does not work. There is one argument in favour of torture that, at first sight, looks as though it may be valid. It is an argument presented by the intelligence community in several parts of the world including countries such as Israel and America. These intelligence officers usually give the example that a terror gang is about to detonate a bomb, overthrow a government or some other terrorist attack. A member of the gang is found. Surely, they argue, it is better for this person to be violently persuaded to give the vital information of where the bomb is to be placed than for many innocents to die. Unfortunately, such an arrested person is likely to lie. The information is likely to be worse than useless. We would assume that those belonging to groups prepared to kill civilians would be given plausible stories to tell should they be arrested. The fake information would have the additional advantage of diverting intelligence efforts down the wrong track and boosting the chances of a successful terror attack. Thus even this superficially valid argument fails the practical test. The ban on torture does not mean that intelligence officers and the police have to treat a suspect as though such a suspect was a guest in their homes. There is a general acceptance that robust interrogation can be used. But this robust interrogation consists of lengthy periods of questioning, sometimes by teams of skilled officers operating in relays. Every inconsistency in the answers is rigorously probed and pursued. A liar will be worn down. Eventually a skilled and experienced senior officer, and such a drastic interrogation should always be led by this sort of person, will be able to make a professional assessment over whether the suspect is involved. If not a handsome apology should be made and the tired and hungry, but unharmed, suspect be released. Even in these cases the general principle is that there should be some real and substantial evidence of involvement in a serious crime before anyone can be subjected to this procedure. The cases of torture documented in the courts, both ours and others, show that this abuse of legal and moral rights is committed by those who are unwilling to follow the professional standards of their calling. First class intelligence officers and first class police detectives do not resort to torture. They obtain their information or their evidence with their brains, not their hands. And that information is more reliable, and the evidence more solid, than anything obtained under torture. We hope the heads of our intelligence and police services make it abundantly clear to all their officers that they will not tolerate torture in any circumstance. This also applies to opposition leaders who have been arrested for kidnapping and torturing members of other political parties. We don�t expect them to cry foul when the tables are turned against them. Torture is wrong and useless. The Mulindwas
communication group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy" |
