Dignity Denied: A Case Study

Duffy, Helen

doi:10.1007/978-94-6265-355-9_5

Dignity Denied: A Case Study

Helen Duffy^3,4

Chapter
First Online: 10 December 2019

501 Accesses

Abstract

Human dignity is foundational in the international human rights regime. It lays claim to multiple roles within the international political and legal order—the source or rationale of human rights , a goal of the Charter of the United Nations, the ‘ultimate value’ or ‘cornerstone’ of the international legal order, a right in itself and intimately interlinked with an array of other rights, with assessments of the impact of violations and the nature of reparation . The subjugation of human dignity is evident in much counter-terrorism practice in recent years, and epitomised by the case of rendition and torture victim Zayn al Abideen Mohammed al Hussein (Abu Zubaydah) . By reference to diverse philosophical conceptions of dignity and its legal manifestations, this chapter explores the multiple dimensions of human dignity that were and are challenged in deep-rooted and wide-ranging ways by the extraordinary rendition and torture programme and on-going arbitrary detention at Guantánamo. These include the commodification of ‘high value detainees’, the centrality of dehumanisation, treating lives and liberty as dispensable, ‘civil death ,’ and the link between the denial of autonomy , agency and the social dimensions of dignity . It considers in turn the role of reparation and accountability in the restoration of dignity . This extreme case invites us to reflect on the more pervasive neglect of human dignity in counter-terrorism practice and the long-term implications of its demise in the name of human security .

Keywords

Dignity
Counter-terrorism
Rendition
Torture
Guantánamo
Indefinite detention
Reparation
Accountability
Secret detention
Enforced disappearance
Abu Zubayda

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 149.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
UN General Assembly (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights , UN Doc. A/RES/217 (III), Preamble.
2.
UN General Assembly (1993) Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by The World Conference on Human Rights , UN Doc. A/CONF.157/23.
3.
Charter of the United Nations, opened for signature 26 June 1945, 1 UNTS XVI (entered into force 24 October 1945), Preamble.
4.
Killmister 2016, p 1087.
5.
Donnelly 2009, p 3; Luban 2009, p 212; Killmister 2016, p 1087.
6.
Luban 2009, p 212; Valentini 2017, p 863.
7.
Hasson 2003, p 83.
8.
Arieli 2002, p 1.
9.
Some of this is set out in Donnelly 2009, p 10, and elsewhere in this chapter.
10.
Petersen 2012, para 37.
11.
Bagaric and Allen 2006.
12.
See discussion in Straight 2017.
13.
Petersen 2012, paras 20–22, on dignity playing dual roles in international law ; as a justification for the human rights regime, as well as particular rights, and as a general principle.
14.
Botha 2009, p 171, notes “‘[h]uman dignity ’ has become an integral part of the vocabulary of comparative constitutionalism.”
15.
E.g. UN General Assembly (2000) Millennium Declaration, Resolution 55/2, UN Doc. A/RES/55/2; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 19 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) (ICCPR); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, opened for signature 19 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976) (ICESCR). The ICCPR and the ICESCR follow the lead of UN General Assembly (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights , UN Doc. A/RES/217 (III) in recognising the “inherent dignity ” of human beings in each’s respective Preamble. Dignity is also referenced in the substantive articles, e.g. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , which recognises that “[a]ll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”, and Article 10 of the ICCPR which guarantees that all persons deprived of liberty will be “treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person”. By contrast Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, opened for signature 27 June 1981, 1520 UNTS 217 (entered into force 21 October 1986) (ACHPR) guarantees respect for dignity as such, while the Article 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights , opened for signature 22 November 1969, 1144 UNTS 123 (entered into force 18 July 1978) (ACHR) refers to it in other provisions, e.g. on prisoners’ rights, labour rights and the right to have honour and dignity recognised. See also Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in All Circumstances, opened for signature 3 May 2002, ETS 187 (entered into force 1 July 2003).
16.
Foster 2011, p 61.
17.
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, ETS 5 (entered into force 3 September 1953) (ECHR).
18.
ECtHR, Abu Zubaydah v Lithuania, Judgment, 31 May 2018, Application No. 46454/11 (Zubaydah 2018), para 664 citing ECtHR, Pretty v The United Kingdom , Judgment, 29 April 2002, Application No. 2346/02, para 65.
19.
According to Antoine Buyse, the ECtHR has referred to dignity in 876 cases, mostly arising in relation to the right to life , the prohibition of torture and the prohibition of slavery and servitude, but also private life, corporal punishment , extended divorce proceedings and the death of a foetus. See Buyse 2016.
20.
UN Human Rights Committee (2018) General comment No. 36 (2018) on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life , UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36. This is reflected in the jurisprudence of the Inter-American system and Indian Supreme Court for example.
21.
Gearty 2013; Goldewijk et al. 2002. For an example of dignity within economic and social rights litigation in South Africa, see South African Constitutional Court, Minister of Health and Others v Treatment Action Campaign and Others, Judgment, 5 July 2002, Case No. CCT 8/02.
22.
E.g. UN Secretary-General 2014.
23.
E.g. Killmister 2016, p 1087, on dignity as a justification for the human rights regime generally, and as a way to describe the harm of particular human rights violations. Petersen 2012, para 16, suggests that the references to dignity by the ECtHR are used to highlight the gravity of the violation, rather than using dignity as a clearly defined legal concept. Nevertheless, the Chamber in ECtHR, Tyrer v The United Kingdom , Judgment, 25 April 1978, Application No. 5856/72, para 33 stated that in relation to the prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, “one of the main purposes of Article 3 […] [is] to protect […] a person’s dignity and physical integrity”.
24.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 19998, 2187 UNTS 90 (entered into force 1 July 2002), Articles 8(2)(b)(xxi) and 8(2)(c)(ii).
25.
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, opened for signature 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (entered into force 21 October 1950); Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, opened for signature 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (entered into force 21 October 1950); Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, opened for signature 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 (entered into force 21 October 1950); Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, opened for signature 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1950).
26.
Rosen relies on the protection of dignity within the Geneva Conventions to suggest that the obligation to respect the dignity of others and to have one’s own dignity respected is a right in and of itself. See Rosen 2012, p 60.
27.
Donnelly 2009, p 11.
28.
Luban 2009: “the world’s nations have reached an overlapping consensus on the central importance of human dignity , in which each culture and subculture may tell its own story about what human dignity is and where it comes from.”
29.
US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2014; ECtHR, Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v Poland, Judgment, 24 July 2014, Application No. 7511/13 (Zubaydah 2014); Zubaydah 2018, above n 18. For an overview of the legal issues from the rendition programme, see Duffy 2015, Chapter 10.
30.
Interview with US Vice-President Cheney on Meet the Press (16 September 2001). See Human Rights Watch 2005, p 9.
31.
US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2014, p 22.
32.
Ibid.
33.
Ibid., p 12.
34.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly 2007, Draft Resolution, para 1.
35.
Thomas Hammarberg quoted in RT News (2011) Who takes the rap for rendition ?
https://www.rt.com/news/hammarberg-cia-prisons-guantanamo-861/. Accessed 13 December 2018.
36.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly 2007, paras 179, 186. Thomas Hammarberg noted the rendition programme had been “carefully and deliberately covered up” by many other States. See CBS News (2011) Rights Chief: Europe “Complicit” in US Torture . https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rights-chief-europe-complicit-in-us-torture//. Accessed 13 December 2018.
37.
Currier 2012.
38.
E.g. two individuals involved in the programme have published books: Jose A. Rodriguez Jnr. Hard Measures in 2012 (Rodriguez toured internationally promoting the book) and James Mitchell Enhanced Interrogation in 2016. As one commentator noted “we don’t put torturers on trial, we put them on book tours.” Pierce C (2012) Waterboards, Drones, and the Drones Who Love Them. https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a13865/jose-rodriguez-cia-book-8484289/. Accessed 18 December 2018.
39.
US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2014. See also supplementary information in Raphael et al. 2019.
40.
Duffy 2018, Chapter 7.
41.
Zubaydah 2014, above n 29; Zubaydah 2018, above n 18. The author represented Abu Zubaydah in ECtHR proceedings.
42.
As the first victim of rendition programme, copious information documents his torture , the lies and misinformation shared about and Abu Zubaydah’s treatment therein, some of which is noted in this brief chapter. See the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2014, which had 1,001 references to him.
43.
Abu Zubaydah 2018, above n 18, para 84; Duffy 2015, Chapter 10.
44.
See Duffy 2015, Chapter 10 for a breakdown of forms of responsibility and legal issues arising.
45.
Bowcott O (2019) Police investigating role of UK officers in torture of al-Qaida suspect. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/mar/31/police-investigating-role-of-uk-officers-in-torture-of-al-qaida-suspect. Accessed 10 May 2019. Raphael et al. 2019, pp 41–43.
46.
Above n 1.
47.
Above n 15.
48.
Wolbert 2007, p 167; Killmister 2016, p 1088.
49.
Kant 1999, p 148 stating that human beings
existe comme fin en soi, et non pas simplement comme moyen dont telle ou telle volonté puisse user à son gré; dans toutes ses actions, aussi bien dans celles qui le concernent lui-même que dans celles qui concernent d’autres êtres raisonnables, il doit toujours être considéré en même temps comme fin” [exists as an end in themselves, and not simply as a means by which this or that can be pursued; in all his actions, both in those concerning himself and in those concerning other reasonable beings, he must always be considered at the same time as an end].
50.
Scheinin 2010, p 600.
51.
German Constitutional Court, Judgment, 21.06.1977, 45 BVerfGE 187 (Life Imprisonment case) cited in Kommers 1997, p 308.
52.
Wolbert 2007, p 167.
53.
US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2014, p 16. The Salim civil litigation in the US provided details in relation to the psychologists Jessen and Mitchell alleged to have contributed to the design of the enhanced interrogation techniques . See also decisions of US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, Husayn v Mitchell and Jessen, Opinion, 18 September 2019, Case No. 18-35218, denying state secrecy as a basis to preclude Mitchell and Jessen being subpoenaed.
54.
Killmister 2016, p 1088; Ignatieff 2004, p 140.
55.
Wolbert 2007, p 173 suggests that it is not possible to weigh the idea of human dignity against something else, and on this basis the prohibition against torture could not be waived in the event of an emergency.
56.
Waldron 2005, pp 1727, 1739.
57.
Ibid., pp 1745–1746.
58.
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment , opened for signature 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS 85 (entered into force 26 June 1987); ICCPR, above n 15, Article 7; ACHR, above n 15, Article 5(2); ACHPR, above n 15, Article 5; ECHR, above n 17, Article 3.
59.
Luban 2009, pp 449–450.
60.
See, e.g., US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2014, p 4; DePillis L (2014) This is how it feels to torture . https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/11/this-is-how-it-feels-to-torture/?utm_term=.107477c8fb0f. Accessed 18 December 2018.
61.
Center for Victims of Torture 2015.
62.
Leopold J (2010) Torture Diaries, Drawings and the Special Prosecutor. https://truthout.org/articles/torture-diaries-drawings-and-the-special-prosecutor/. Accessed 13 December 2018.
63.
This appeared in relation to Department of Defense and CIA detention. See, e.g., US Senate Committee on Armed Services 2008, which reflects Department of Defense memos recording detainees being forced to “bark and perform dog tricks”, a training which recommended “stripping the individual, having the guards address the individual as if that person were an ‘animal’”.
64.
E.g. President Trump was criticised for his reference to terrorist suspects (following the London 2018 attacks) as “animals”. For recent justifications of torture within the US administration, see, e.g., UNC School of Law Human Rights Policy Lab 2017.
65.
UNC School of Law Human Rights Policy Lab 2017 emphasises islamophobia as a crucial dimension of the rendition programme and post-9/11 abuse in the counter-terrorism context. See also Duffy 2015, Chapter 7.
66.
ICRC 2007, p 26.
67.
See CCPR, María del Carmen Almeida de Quinteros et al. v Uruguay, Views, 15 October 1982, Communication No. 107/1981 (Quinteros), para 14. See also CCPR, El-Megreisi v Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views, 24 March 1994, Communication No. 440/1990, paras 2.1–2.5; CCPR, Mojica v Dominican Republic, Views, 10 August 1994, Communication No. 449/1991, para 5.7; IACtHR, Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment, 29 July 1988, IACtHR Series C No 4, para 187.
68.
See UN Economic and Social Council (1983) Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1983/14, para 131 which notes that “the very fact of being detained as a disappeared person, isolated from one’s family for a long period is certainly a violation of the right to humane conditions of detention and has been represented to the Group as torture .”
69.
Zubaydah 2018, above n 18, para 552.
70.
Ibid., paras 549, 640.
71.
US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2014, pp 4, 40; US Central Intelligence Agency 2003; US Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel 2004. See also reports by Jessen cited in Siems L (2017) Inside the CIA ’s black site torture room. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/oct/09/cia-torture-black-site-enhanced-interrogation. Accessed 13 May 2019.
72.
Ibid. At first the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques ’ on Abu Zubaydah and others were authorised orally, but on 1 August 2002, the US Department of Justice issued a memorandum, authorising in writing the use of ten identified ‘enhanced interrogation techniques ’, and provided general guidelines for determining the lawfulness of additional enhanced interrogation techniques . See US Department of Justice Office of the Assistant Attorney General 2002, Part III.
73.
US Department of Justice Office of the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 2005, pp 12–14.
74.
US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2014, p 29.
75.
The quote continues “[…] and 29 hours in a small confinement box, which had a width of 21 inches, a depth of 2.5 feet, and a height of 2.5 feet. […] The CIA interrogators told Abu Zubaydah that the only way he would leave the facility was in the coffin-shaped confinement box.” Ibid., p 42.
76.
US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2014, p 86.
77.
Ibid., p 3.
78.
Ibid., p 40.
79.
Ibid., p 3.
80.
E.g. Al Asad 2011, para 14.
81.
E.g. ibid., footnote 584: “Abu Zubaydah’s treatment also included, for example, sexual violence […] and the deliberate withholding of medical treatment leading to permanent physical damage as an interrogation tactic.”
82.
Ibid., p 100.
83.
Descriptions in exchanges between guards and psychologists noted as a matter of fact that after a certain point “all of the prisoners shake” at the Afghan site which did not seem to be consider unusual. See Siems L (2017) Inside the CIA ’s black site torture room. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/oct/09/cia-torture-black-site-enhanced-interrogation. Accessed 13 May 2019. The same psychologists extolled the virtues of the programme and the enhanced interrogation techniques . See, e.g., Director of Central Intelligence 2016.
84.
US Central Intelligence Agency 2002, p 41: e.g. “[a]t the onset of involuntary stomach and leg spasms, subject was again elevated to clear his airway, which was followed by hysterical pleas. Subject was distressed to the level that he was unable to effectively communicate or adequately engage the team.”
85.
US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2014, p 42. He was reportedly cooperative when detained, and interrogators assessed it was their “collective preliminary assessment” that he had no additional information; the cable exchange shows despite growing concerns that it was “highly unlikely” he had any information, they were repeatedly told to continue. This in turn was based on erroneous information that he was trained to resist interrogation .
86.
US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2014, p 2. This contributes to the Committee’s first finding that “based on a review of CIA interrogation records […] the use of the CIA ’s enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of obtaining accurate information.”
87.
US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2014, p 34.
88.
Ibid., refers to “bubbles rising through his open, full mouth.”
89.
US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2014, p 54.
90.
E.g. Suleiman Abdullah whose suicide attempt is recorded in these terms in Raphael et al. 2019, p 21.
91.
The Senate Report cites also the reply cable: US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2014, p 35.
92.
Ibid.
93.
Note how the associated debate has focused on dignity . See, e.g., De Beco 2005, p 414.
94.
Luban 2009, pp 447–448.
95.
Life Imprisonment case, above n 51, cited in Kommers 1997, pp 305–311.
96.
Kommers 1997, p 309.
97.
Ibid., p 310.
98.
German Constitutional Court, Judgment, 24.04.1986, 72 BVerfGE 105 cited in Kommers 1997, pp 311–312.
99.
ECtHR, Vinter and Others v The United Kingdom , Grand Chamber Judgment, 9 July 2013, Application Nos. 66069/09, 130/10, 3896/10, paras 15–28, 110, 113; ECtHR, Kafkaris v Cyprus, Grand Chamber Judgment, 12 February 2008, Application No. 21906/04, para 97. See also ECtHR, Trabelsi v Belgium , Judgment, 4 September 2014, Application No. 140/10, paras 112–115, 137, stating that “the imposition of an irreducible life sentence” may violate Article 3 of the ECHR, depending upon “whether a life prisoner can be said to have any prospect of release” including processes to establish whether “progress had been made towards rehabilitation”. See also IACtHR, Mendoza et al. v Argentina, Judgment, 14 May 2013, IACtHR Series C No. 260, para 315 where the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found the imposition of life imprisonment on juveniles to constitute a breach of the ACHR, noting State responsibility for “restoring human dignity ”. Life imprisonment is prohibited in several constitutions, including in Latin America, reflected in e.g. the Inter-American Convention on Extradition, opened for signature 25 February 1981, OASTS 60 (entered into force 28 March 1992), Article 9. For an analysis, see, e.g., Public International Law & Policy Group Netherlands 2016; Valeska and Fraser 2015, p 551.
100.
E.g. in the context of the equality rights, gender recognition has been recognised as, inter alia, about dignity , while discrimination , in some circumstances, as a factor leading to treatment being considered per se degrading.
101.
Zubaydah 2018, above n 18, para 656.
102.
The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, opened for signature 20 December 2006, 2716 UNTS 3, (entered into force 23 December 2010) defines disappearance as “the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty committed by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.” See e.g. UN General Assembly (2010) Human Rights Council: Joint study on global practices in relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism , Martin Scheinin; the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment , Manfred Nowak; the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention represented by its Vice-chair, Shaheen Sardar Ali; and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances represented by its Chair, Jeremy Sarkin, UN Doc. A/HRC/13/42, para 28: “[e]very instance of secret detention also amounts to a case of enforced disappearance”. Zubaydah 2018, above n 18, para 656.
103.
UN General Assembly (1992) Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, UN Doc. A/RES/47/133, Article 1.
104.
ICRC 2007. See, e.g., Quinteros, above n 67, para 14; ECtHR, Varnava and Others v Turkey, Grand Chamber Judgment, 18 September 2009, Application Nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90, 16073/90, paras 200–202; ECtHR, Tanis and Others v Turkey, Judgment, 2 August 2005, Application No. 65899/01, para 219; ECtHR, Cyprus v Turkey, Grand Chamber Judgment, 10 May 2001, Application No. 25781/94, paras 155–8; ECtHR, Kurt v Turkey, Judgment, 25 May 1998, Application No. 15/1997/799/1002, para 134; Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Avdo and Esma Palić v Republika Srpska, Decision on Admissibility and Merits, 11 January 2001, Case No. CH/99/3196, paras 79–80.
105.
See, e.g., ECtHR, Bazorkina v Russia , Judgment, 27 July 2006, Application No. 69481/01. See also ICRC 2007.
106.
Beccaria 1986, who rejected the idea of criminal justice that treated human beings as objects and as sources of information. See above Sect. 5.3.3 on the related issue of the commodification of the individual.
107.
Klein 2002, p 148.
108.
Bo 2014, p 3.
109.
Beitz 2013, p 289.
110.
The Confucian view of human persons as capable of realising ‘Ren’, the highest Confucian moral ideal, means certain ability or disposition to care for and sympathise with others. See Chan 2014, p 118. See also Killmister 2016, pp 1087–1101.
111.
Fukuyama F (2012) The Drive for Dignity . https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/01/12/the-drive-for-dignity/. Accessed 13 December 2018.
112.
Raphael et al., p 79.
113.
Reflected in CIA cables setting out the detention and interrogation in detail. See US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2014, p 28.
114.
The negative effects of solitary confinement are well documented, and such confinement on a prolonged basis amounts to torture . Numerous reports record the long-term psychological impact of the rendition programme on victims. See, e.g., International Bar Association 2009, para 1.29; American Psychological Association 2007; Weissman et al. 2017, p 7.
115.
Zubaydah 2014, above n 29, para 80.
116.
The US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence lays bare the deliberate and repeated efforts by US Government officials to mislead the public and various oversight bodies about Abu Zubaydah. The CIA provided inaccurate information to the Office of Legal Counsel on Abu Zubaydah’s status within al-Qaeda, its certainty that Abu Zubaydah was withholding information. CIA reports acknowledge also that he was “miscast” as a senior terror leader and that claims about his involvement with al Qaeda were “inaccurate”. US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2014, pp 5, 21. See also “misconceptions” about Abu Zubaydah as a senior al Qaeda lieutenant. Ibid., pp 466, 410: “Abu Zubaydah was not a member of al Qaeda”.
117.
E.g. Former Vice President Cheney described prisoners this way. See NBC News (2009) Cheney: Gitmo Holds “Worst of the Worst”: Former Vice President Says Killing Suspects was Only Other Option. www.nbcnews.com/id/31052241/ns/world_news-terrorism/t/cheney-gitmo-holds-worst-worst/#.XBOpbmhKg2w. Accessed 13 December 2018.
118.
Open Society Justice Initiative 2003; Duffy 2015, Chapter 10.
119.
Lewis P (2014) Obama admits CIA “tortured some folks” but stands by Brennan over spying. www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/01/obama-cia-torture-some-folks-brennan-spying. Accessed 13 December 2018.
120.
Duffy 2018, Chapter 7, p 157.
121.
See, e.g., The Guardian (2019) UK spent £11m of public money fighting Libya rendition case: Figures show vast sums spent resisting apology demands over rendition of Libyan dissidents. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/24/uk-public-money-fighting-libya-rendition-case-abdel-hakim-belhaj-fatima-boudchar. Accessed 29 July 2019.
122.
Poynting 2016, p 208 referring to ECtHR, Babar Ahmad and Others v The United Kingdom , Judgment, 10 April 2012, Application Nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09, 67354/09, and failure to address his alleged torture as implicatory denial.
123.
Feinberg 1966, p 143.
124.

“[I]guales posibilidades para alcanzar una capacidad madura que le permita hacer uso de sus derechos y articular argumentativamente sus demandas.” Guariglia 1994, p 186 (translation by the author).
125.
On the various impacts of human rights litigation, see Duffy 2018, Chapters 3 and 4, and, in the counter-terrorism context, Chapter 7, pp 157–165.
126.
For a detailed account of the Salim case against Mitchell and Jessen, see American Civil Liberties Union (2017) Salim v Mitchell – lawsuit against psychologists behind CIA torture program. https://www.aclu.org/cases/salim-v-mitchell-lawsuit-against-psychologists-behind-cia-torture-program. Accessed 13 December 2018. See for a brief discussion Duffy 2018, Chapter 7.
127.
See Sect. 5.3.7: the only legal avenue he has been able to access thus far has been international human rights litigation.
128.
Zubaydah 2014, above n 29, paras 552–559.
129.
For a fuller discussion of impact, see Duffy 2018, Chapter 7.
130.
Duffy 2015, Chapter 10. It also potentially falls within the jurisdiction of the ICC if domestic options continue to fail.
131.
See, e.g., Duffy 2014, p 328; Johnston D, C Savage (2004) Obama Reluctant to Look Into Bush Programs. www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/politics/12inquire.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Accessed 13 December 2018.
132.
The cases are subject to supervision by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, which has called on both States to report on measures of investigation , accountability and outreach to the US.
133.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has acknowledged the “intolerable impediment to the independence of justice” in relation to the trial of the kidnappers of Abu Omar, that has been hindered by the obstacle of State secrecy . Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly 2007, Draft Resolution, para 14.
134.
The New York Times (2012) No Penalty for Torture . www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/opinion/no-penalty-for-torture.html. Accessed 13 December 2018.
135.
E.g. indicating that “a defendant is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering”, albeit it in discredited legal advice entirely alien to international law standards. US Department of Justice Office of the Assistant Attorney General 2002, p 4.
136.
US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2014, p 35.
137.
UN General Assembly (2006) The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, UN Doc. A/RES/60/288, pp 2, 4, 9.
138.
So far as dignity reflects the inherent value of human life, there is a debate among moral philosophers, sometimes reflected in judgments and legal argument, as to whether states can really deprive someone of dignity. See, e.g., the controversial comments of J. Clarence Thomas that “[t]he government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away” (US Supreme Court, Obergefell v Hodges, Decision, 26 June 2015, Case No. 14-556, Dissenting Opinion of Justice Thomas, p 15).
139.
UN Human Rights Committee (2018) General comment No. 36 (2018) on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life , UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36.
140.
See, e.g., US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2014, p 4; DePillis L (2014) This is how it feels to torture . https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/11/this-is-how-it-feels-to-torture/?utm_term=.107477c8fb0f. Accessed 18 December 2018.
141.
See, e.g., discussion with Juan Mendez and Keith Carmichael in Mbe VS (2012) Torture . https://thoughteconomics.com/torture/. Accessed 29 July 2019.
142.
E.g. UN General Assembly (2006) The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, UN Doc. A/RES/60/288 underscored the mutually reinforcing nature of the relationship between respect for basic human rights and security; the role of injustice (real and perceived) in fomenting terrorism has been widely acknowledged. For example Obama was among those who famously referred to Guantánamo as a ‘recruitment tool for al Qaeda’, while studies on foreign terrorist fighters suggest perceptions of injustice as among the ‘push and pull’ factors. See, e.g., Duffy 2015, Chapter 7; Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe 2018.

References

Articles, Books and Other Documents

Al Asad MAS (2011) Declaration of Mohammed Abdullah Saleh Al Asad before the African Commission for Human & Peoples’ Rights in the matter between Mohammed Abdullah Saleh Al Asad and Djibouti. https://chrgj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Al-Asad-Signed-Declaration.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2019
American Psychological Association (2007) Reaffirmation of the American Psychological Association Position Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Its Application to Individuals Defined in the United States Code as “Enemy Combatants”. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/torture.aspx. Accessed 13 December 2018
Arieli Y (2002) On the Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for the Emergence of the Doctrine of the Dignity of Man and His Rights. In: Kretzmer D, Klein E (eds) The Concept of Human Dignity in Human Rights Discourse. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 1–18
Google Scholar
Bagaric M, Allen J (2006) The Vacuous Concept of Human Dignity. Journal of Human Rights 5(2):257–270
CrossRef Google Scholar
Beccaria C (1986) On Crimes and Punishments. Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis
Google Scholar
Beitz CR (2013) Human Dignity in the Theory of Human Rights: Nothing But a Phrase? Philosophy and Public Affairs 41(3):259–290
CrossRef Google Scholar
Bo C (2014) “Dignity” and the Incomplete Grounding of International Human Rights. FICHL Policy Brief Series No. 21. www.toaep.org/pbs-pdf/21-chen. Accessed 13 December 2018
Botha H (2009) Human Dignity in Comparative Perspective. Stellenbosch Law Review 20(2):171–220
Google Scholar
Buyse A (2016) The Role of Human Dignity in ECHR Case-Law. ECHR Blog. http://echrblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-role-of-human-dignity-in-echr-case.html. Accessed 1 August 2018
Chan J (2014) Confucian Perfectionism: A Political Philosophy for Modern Times. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Google Scholar
Center for Victims of Torture (2015) Effects of Torture. https://www.cvt.org/sites/default/files/downloads/CVT%20Effects%20Torture%20April%202015.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2019
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (2007) Rapporteur Dick Marty: Secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states: second report, CoE Doc. 11302 rev.
Google Scholar
Currier C (2012) Classified in Gitmo Trials: Detainees’ Every Word. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/classified-in-gitmo-trials-detainees-every-word. Accessed 13 December 2018
De Beco G (2005) Life sentences and human dignity. The International Journal of Human Rights 9(3):411–419
CrossRef Google Scholar
Director of Central Intelligence (2016) Memorandum for the National Security Advisor. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/0006541535.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2018
Donnelly J (2009) Human Dignity and Human Rights. Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Research Project on Human Dignity. https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/e80bda/pdf/. Accessed 13 December 2018
Duffy H (2014) Accountability for counter-terrorism: challenges and potential in the role of the courts. In: Davis F, de Londras F (eds) Critical Debates on Counter-Terrorism Judicial Review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 324–364
CrossRef Google Scholar
Duffy H (2015) The ‘War on Terror’ and the Framework of International Law, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
CrossRef Google Scholar
Duffy H (2018) Strategic Human Rights Litigation. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Google Scholar
Feinberg J (1966) Duties, Rights and Claims. American Philosophical Quarterly 3(2):137–144
Google Scholar
Foster C (2011) Human Dignity in Bioethics and Law. Bloomsbury Publishing, London
Google Scholar
Gearty C (2013) Socio-Economic Rights, Basic Needs, and Human Dignity: A Perspective from Law’s Front Line. In: McCrudden C (ed) Understanding Human Dignity. Oxford University Press/British Academy, Oxford, pp 155–172
Google Scholar
Goldewijk BK, Baspineiro AC, Carbonari PC (2002) Dignity and Human Rights: The Implementation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Intersentia, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Guariglia O (1994) Universalismo y particularismo en la ética contemporánea [Universalism and particularism in contemporary ethics]. Revista de Filosofia (Madrid) 11:177–198
Google Scholar
Hasson KJ (2003) Religious Liberty and Human Dignity: A Tale of Two Declarations. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 27(1):81–92
Google Scholar
Human Rights Watch (2005) Getting Away with Torture? Command Responsibility for the US Abuse of Detainees. http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us0405/us0405.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2018
ICRC (2007) Report on the treatment of fourteen “high value detainees” in CIA custody. https://www.nybooks.com/media/doc/2010/04/22/icrc-report.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2018
Ignatieff M (2004) The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror: the Gifford Lectures. Princeton University Press, Princeton
CrossRef Google Scholar
International Bar Association (2009) Extraordinary renditions. https://www.ibanet.org/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=75514BE9-31D9-4836-B15D-99DF6ED31E8F. Accessed 13 May 2019
Kant I (1999) Fondements de la metaphysique des moeurs [Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals]. Delagrave, Paris
Google Scholar
Killmister S (2016) Dignity, Torture and Human Rights. Ethic Theory and Moral Practice 19(5):1087–1101
CrossRef Google Scholar
Klein E (2002) Human Dignity in German Law. In: Kretzmer D, Klein E (eds) The Concept of Human Dignity in Human Rights Discourse. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 145–159
Google Scholar
Kommers DP (1997) The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany, 2nd edn. Duke University Press, Durham
Google Scholar
Luban D (2009) Human Dignity, Humiliation and Torture. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19(3):211–230
CrossRef Google Scholar
Open Society Justice Initiative (2003) Globalizing Torture CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/globalizing-torture-20120205.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2018
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (2018) Guidelines for Addressing the Threats and Challenges of “Foreign Terrorist Fighters” within a Human Rights Framework. https://www.osce.org/odihr/393503?download=true. Accessed 31 October 2018
Petersen N (2012) Human Dignity, International Protection. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e809. Accessed 1 August 2018
Poynting S (2016) Entitled to be a Radical? Counter-Terrorism and Travesty of Human Rights in the Case of Babar Ahmad. State Crime Journal 5(2):204–219
CrossRef Google Scholar
Public International Law & Policy Group Netherlands (2016) Legality of Life Imprisonment: Comparative Analysis of International, European, and Dutch Law. https://pilpnjcm.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PILPG-NL-Life-Imprisonment-Comparative-Analysis-26.05.16.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2019
Raphael S, Black C, Blakeley R (2019) CIA Torture Unredacted. www.therenditionproject.org.uk/documents/RDI/190710-TRP-TBIJ-CIA-Torture-Unredacted-Full.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2019
Rosen M (2012) Dignity: Its History and Meaning. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
CrossRef Google Scholar
Scheinin M (2010) Terrorism. In: Moeckli D, Shah S, Sivakumaran S (eds) International Human Rights Law, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 550–566
Google Scholar
Straight A (2017) Human Dignity; A critical discussion of the ultimate legal tool for the effective protection of humanity in the twenty-first century. Exeterlaw. https://www.exeterlaw.org/human-rights/human-dignity-a-critical-discussion-of-the-ultimate-legal-tool-for-the-effective-protection-of-humanity-in-the-twenty-first-century/#_ftn22 (link no longer active). Accessed 13 December 2018
UNC School of Law Human Rights Policy Lab (2017) Extraordinary Rendition and Torture: What the Narratives of Victims Reveal and Require. http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/academics/humanrights/narrativethemes.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2019
UN Economic and Social Council (1983) Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1983/14
Google Scholar
UN General Assembly (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN Doc. A/RES/217 (III)
Google Scholar
UN General Assembly (1992) Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, UN Doc. A/RES/47/133
Google Scholar
UN General Assembly (1993) Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by The World Conference on Human Rights, UN Doc. A/CONF.157/23
Google Scholar
UN General Assembly (2000) Millennium Declaration, UN Doc. A/RES/55/2
Google Scholar
UN General Assembly (2006) The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, UN Doc. A/RES/60/288
Google Scholar
UN General Assembly (2010) Human Rights Council: Joint study on global practices in relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin; the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak; the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention represented by its Vice-chair, Shaheen Sardar Ali; and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances represented by its Chair, Jeremy Sarkin, UN Doc. A/HRC/13/42
Google Scholar
UN Human Rights Committee (2018) General comment No. 36 (2018) on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36
Google Scholar
UN Secretary-General (2014) The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and Protecting the Planet. https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/reports/SG_Synthesis_Report_Road_to_Dignity_by_2030.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2019
US Central Intelligence Agency (2002) Memorandum on the assessment of current status of the aggressive interrogation strategy of Abu Zubaydah. https://static01.nyt.com/packages/pdf/us/20170620_interrogations/cia-cables.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2018
US Central Intelligence Agency (2003) Memorandum on Death Investigation of Gul Rahman. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/0006555318.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2018
US Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (2004) Background Paper on CIA’s Combined Use of Interrogation techniques. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/torturefoia/released/082409/olcremand/2004olc97.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2018
US Department of Justice Office of the Assistant Attorney General (2002) Memorandum for Alberto R Gonzales Counsel to the President. https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/886061/download. Accessed 13 December 2018
US Department of Justice Office of the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General (2005) Memorandum for John A. Rizzo Senior Deputy General Counsel, CIA. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/legacy/2013/10/21/memo-bradbury2005.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2018
US Senate Committee on Armed Services (2008) Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody. https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Detainee-Report-Final_April-22-2009.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2019
US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2014) Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program Findings and Conclusions – Executive Summary. https://fas.org/irp/congress/2014_rpt/ssci-rdi.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2018
Valentini L (2017) Dignity and Human Rights: A Reconceptualisation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 37(4):862–885
CrossRef Google Scholar
Valeska D, Fraser J (2015) Juvenile Criminal Justice before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Aims and Limitations of the Imprisonment of Children. In: Haeck Y, Ruiz-Chiriboga O, Burbano Herrera C (eds) The Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Theory and Practice, Present and Future. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 547–572
Google Scholar
Waldron J (2005) Torture and positive law: jurisprudence for the White House. Colombia Law Review 105(6):1681–1750
Google Scholar
Weissman DM, Bennett JR, Chammas I, Hegde S, Li H, Nooney JS, Norchi M, Proctor S, Walters TJ (2017) Extraordinary Rendition and Torture. What the Narratives of Victims Reveal and Require. UNC School of Law Human Rights Policy Lab. https://www.law.unc.edu/documents/academics/humanrights/narrativethemes.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2018
Wolbert W (2007) Human Dignity, Human Rights and Torture. Scriptura 95:166–176
Google Scholar

Case Law

CCPR, María del Carmen Almeida de Quinteros et al. v Uruguay, Views, 15 October 1982, Communication No. 107/1981
Google Scholar
CCPR, El-Megreisi v Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views, 24 March 1994, Communication No. 440/1990
Google Scholar
CCPR, Mojica v Dominican Republic, Views, 10 August 1994, Communication No. 449/1991
Google Scholar
ECtHR, Tyrer v The United Kingdom, Judgment, 25 April 1978, Application No. 5856/72
Google Scholar
ECtHR, Kurt v Turkey, Judgment, 25 May 1998, Application No. 15/1997/799/1002
Google Scholar
ECtHR, Cyprus v Turkey, Grand Chamber Judgment, 10 May 2001, Application No. 25781/94
Google Scholar
ECtHR, Pretty v The United Kingdom, Judgment, 29 April 2002, Application No. 2346/02
Google Scholar
ECtHR, Tanis and Others v Turkey, Judgment, 2 August 2005, Application No. 65899/01
Google Scholar
ECtHR, Bazorkina v Russia, Judgment, 27 July 2006, Application No. 69481/01
Google Scholar
ECtHR, Kafkaris v Cyprus, Grand Chamber Judgment, 12 February 2008, Application No. 21906/04
Google Scholar
ECtHR, Varnava and Others v Turkey, Grand Chamber Judgment, 18 September 2009, Application Nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90, 16073/90
Google Scholar
ECtHR, Babar Ahmad and Others v The United Kingdom, Judgment, 10 April 2012, Application Nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09, 67354/09
Google Scholar
ECtHR, Vinter and Others v The United Kingdom, Grand Chamber Judgment, 9 July 2013, Application Nos. 66069/09, 130/10, 3896/10
Google Scholar
ECtHR, Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v Poland, Judgment, 24 July 2014, Application No. 7511/13
Google Scholar
ECtHR, Trabelsi v Belgium, Judgment, 4 September 2014, Application No. 140/10
Google Scholar
ECtHR, Abu Zubaydah v Lithuania, Judgment, 31 May 2018, Application No. 46454/11
Google Scholar
German Constitutional Court, Judgment, 21.06.1977, 45 BVerfGE 187
Google Scholar
German Constitutional Court, Judgment, 24.04.1986, 72 BVerfGE 105
Google Scholar
Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Avdo and Esma Palić v Republika Srpska, Decision on Admissibility and Merits, 11 January 2001, Case No. CH/99/3196
Google Scholar
IACtHR, Velasquez Rodriguez v Honduras, Judgment, 29 July 1988, IACtHR Series C No. 4
Google Scholar
IACtHR, Mendoza et al. v Argentina, Judgment, 14 May 2013, IACtHR Series C No. 260
Google Scholar
South African Constitutional Court, Minister of Health and Others v Treatment Action Campaign and Others, Judgment, 5 July 2002, Case No. CCT 8/02
Google Scholar
US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, Husayn v Mitchell and Jessen, Opinion, 18 September 2019, Case No. 18-35218
Google Scholar
US Supreme Court, Obergefell v Hodges, Decision, 26 June 2015, Case No. 14-556
Google Scholar

Treaties

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, opened for signature 27 June 1981, 1520 UNTS 217 (entered into force 21 October 1986)
Google Scholar
American Convention on Human Rights, opened for signature 22 November 1969, 1144 UNTS 123 (entered into force 18 July 1978)
Google Scholar
Charter of the United Nations, opened for signature 26 June 1945, 1 UNTS XVI (entered into force 24 October 1945)
Google Scholar
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment , opened for signature 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS 85 (entered into force 26 June 1987)
Google Scholar
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, ETS 5 (entered into force 3 September 1953)
Google Scholar
Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, opened for signature 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (entered into force 21 October 1950)
Google Scholar
Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, opened for signature 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (entered into force 21 October 1950)
Google Scholar
Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, opened for signature 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1950)
Google Scholar
Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, opened for signature 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 (entered into force 21 October 1950)
Google Scholar
Inter-American Convention on Extradition, opened for signature 25 February 1981, OASTS 60 (entered into force 28 March 1992)
Google Scholar
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, opened for signature 20 December 2006, 2716 UNTS 3 (entered into force 23 December 2010)
Google Scholar
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 19 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976)
Google Scholar
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, opened for signature 19 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976)
Google Scholar
Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in All Circumstances, opened for signature 3 May 2002, ETS 187 (entered into force 1 July 2003)
Google Scholar
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 90 (entered into force 1 July 2002)
Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to Human Rights in Practice Research Assistant Taylor Woodcock for her help with the preparation of this chapter, and to my late father-in-law, philosopher Osvaldo Guariglia, whose presence I felt (and counsel I missed) while writing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Human Rights in Practice, The Hague, The Netherlands
Helen Duffy
Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
Helen Duffy

Authors

Helen Duffy
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen Duffy .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Research Department, T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands
Dr. Christophe Paulussen
Department of Law, European University Institute, Florence, Italy
Prof. Martin Scheinin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Duffy, H. (2020). Dignity Denied: A Case Study. In: Paulussen, C., Scheinin, M. (eds) Human Dignity and Human Security in Times of Terrorism. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-355-9_5

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-355-9_5
Published: 10 December 2019
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-354-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-355-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)