In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter VII, Reading 4 Rape Is Torture Political pressure, both domestic and international, is a critical component of human rights change. But if new standards are to be put in place and expected to last, they must ultimately be codified in law. Interestingly enough, once new legal understandings are arrived at, they tend in turn to influence cultural norms. (Contrary to the famous slogan of the segregationist movement in the United States, you really can legislate morality.) One of the most significant changes in international human rights law was signaled by the 1997 decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Aydin v. Turkey, in which the Court found that rape of a female detainee was a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protecti'ln of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the article that prohibits torture. No longer could such an act be considered merely a private or social crime. Here is an excerpt from the Court's historic ruling. European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 25 September 1997 As to the Facts 1. The Applicant 13. The applicant, Mrs. Siikran Aydm, is a Turkish citizen ofKurdish origin . [...] At the time of the events at issue she was 17 years old and living with her parents in the village ofTasit, which is about ten kilometres from the town of Derik where the district gendarmerie headquarters are located. The applicant had never traveled beyond her village before the events which led to her application to the Commission. 2. The Situation in the South-East ofTurkey 14. Since approximately 1985, serious disturbances have raged in the South-East ofTurkey between the security forces and the members of the PKK (Workers' Party ofKurdistan). This confrontation has so far, according to the Government, claimed the lives of4,036 civilians and 3,884 members of the security forces. At the time of the Court's consideration of the case, ten of the eleven provinces ofsouth-eastern Turkey had since 1987 been subjected to emergency rule. European Court of Human Rights, Aydin v. Turkey 305 I. Particular Circumstances of the Case [...] F. THE COMMISSION'S EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS OF FACT [...] 40. The Commission's findings can be summarised as follows: [...] 4. Having regard to her evidence and her demeanour before the delegates, and having given due consideration in particular to the medical reports drawn up by Dr Akku~, Dr Cetin and the doctor from the Diyarbala.r Maternity Hospital, the Commission found it established that during her custody at Derik gendarmerie headquarters the applicant was blindfolded, beaten, stripped, placed inside a tyre and sprayed with high pressure water, and raped. It would appear probable that the applicant was subjected to such treatment on the basis ofsuspicion ofcollaboration by herself or members of her family with members of the PKK, the purpose being to gain information and/or to deter her family and other villagers from becoming implicated in terrorist activities. As to the Law [...] II. Alleged Violation of Article 3 of the Convention [...] C. THE COURT'S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE FACTS ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION [...] 73. The Court considers that it should accept the facts as established by the Commission [...] 2. The Court's Assessment [...] 81. As it has observed on many occasions, Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the fundamental values of democratic societies and as such it prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.[...]. 82. In order to determine whether any particular form of ill-treatment should be qualified as torture, regard must be had to the distinction drawn in Article 3 between this notion and that of inhuman treatment or degrading treatment. This distinction would appear to have been embodied in the Convention to allow the special stigma of "torture" to attach only .227.161.226] Project MUSE (2024-04-19 08:20 GMT) 306 Chapter VII to deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering [...]. 83. While being held in detention the applicant was raped by a person whose identity has still to be determined. Rape of a detainee by an official of the State must be considered to be an especially grave and abhorrent form of ill-treatment given the ease with which the offender can exploit the vulnerability and weakened resistance ofhis victim. Furthermore, rape leaves deep psychological scars on the victim which do not respond to the passage of time as quickly as other forms of physical and mental...

Share