Convention Against Torture mauled

Elaboration: U.N.C.A.T(United Nations Convention Against Torture) *Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever"[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture#Ban_on_torture_and_cruel_and_degrading_treatment]] Bottom Line: NO EXCEPTIONS *Article 16 requires every State Party to “undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture . . . .”[[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading236]] Prevent NOT Cause. * Ban On Re-fouling: Article 3 prohibits parties from returning, extraditing or re-fouling any person to a state "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture".[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture#Ban_on_refoulement]] Countries should therefore be prohibited from SELLING prisoners to the United States Military or other institutions that BUY prisoners. *'Article 4 requires each State Party to ensure that all acts of torture, as well as attempts to commit, or be compliant in, torture are criminalized.[181] The Convention against Torture also requires each State Party to extradite or prosecute accused torturers who are present in any territory under its jurisdiction'[articles 5and 7)-[[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading236]] -War Crime alert, bring in the leaders and torturers. The liability/responsibility of the State, IS the liability/accountability of its leader. "Khan v. Canada,[190] the Committee determined that by transferring a person to a country that was not a party to the Convention against Torture, Canada violated Article 3, both because the transfer would subject the person to a danger of torture, and because the transfer would make it impossible for the person to apply for protection under the Convention against Torture.[191] In Agiza v. Sweden,[192] the Committee against Torture determined that Sweden’s use of extraordinary rendition in December 2001 violated Article 3.[193] With U.S. assistance, the government of Sweden seized Egyptian Ahmed Agiza and transported him to Egypt.[194] The Committee found that “it was known, or should have been known, to [Sweden]’s authorities at the time of [Agiza]’s removal that Egypt resorted to consistent and widespread use of torture against detainees, and that the risk of such treatment was particularly high in the case of detainees held for political and security reasons.”[195] The Committee also determined that “an inability to contest an expulsion decision before an independent authority . . . [is] relevant to a finding of a violation of article 3” because it violates “the procedural obligation to provide for effective, independent and impartial review required by article 3 of the Convention.”[196] The Committee rejected Sweden’s argument that it had obtained assurances from the government of Egypt to ensure that Agiza would not be ill-treated.[197] A recent report by the Special Rapporteur on torture confirms that extraordinary rendition violates Article 3 of the Convention against Torture.[198]"-[[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/weissbrodt.shtml#Heading236 pages 143 & 144]]