The Ms Maxwell Series: Is it torture?

This week we finish our series pegged around the topic of torture, which made British news headlines in early Spring 2021 when Ghislaine Maxwell’s brother, Ian, spoke out against what he felt were torturous conditions in her New York jail. She is apparently being continually observed in a 6x9ft (1.8x2.7m) cell with no natural light and terrible food & water rations.

Previously: is sleep deprivation torture?

During this series we have asked ‘What is torture?’, ‘How small is too small?’ for a jail cell, and ‘What’s diet got to with it?’. And most recently we asked, ‘Is sleep deprivation torture?’ Over in Europe, a landmark case in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concluded that sleep deprivation, used as part of five techniques used in interrogation, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, but not torture. For Ghislaine over in the United States of America (USA) though, sleep deprivation as a consequence of suicide monitoring during the night could be an over-reaction and indeed counter-productive, unless that monitoring matched her level of risk. Whether sleep deprivation is inflicted for the purposes of interrogation, suicide surveillance or it is a result of other biopsychosocial factors from living in prison, it can have lasting health consequences that no human deserves.

Conclusions

Is it ill-treatment?

If Ghislaine is indeed being held in a 6x9ft (1.8x2.7m) cell with no natural light, under constant surveillance, and with terrible food and water rations as her brother reports, then could this amount to ill-treatment? According to the Nelson Mandela Rules (NMR), which the USA (as a member of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly) has to abide by, it could well be the case:-

• Has she been held for 22 hours a day, for more than 15 consecutive days as defined as solitary confinement, so breaching rules 44 and 45?

• Has her microwaved food lost its nutritional value to the extent that it is inadequate for health and strength, so breaching rule 22?

• Has there been insufficient attention to minimum floor space and lighting in her cell, so breaching rule 13?

If the answer to any of these question is an objective yes, then it may fairly be said that she has been subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

But is it torture?

Moving on from an objective yes to the above ill-treatment questions, then - as torture is a subset of ill-treatment - it may be that Ghislaine is being tortured. Let’s see…

We can’t use the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or its more detailed Convention on the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), as she is not being held in Europe. Even if we could use these conventions, they do not actually define the torture that they ban. Instead, ECtHR judges sometimes rule on whether a particular case of alleged ill-treatment could be said to amount to torture.

We can’t utilise the UN’s Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) and monitoring by its mandated Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT) to inspect her jail and look for evidence of torture, as the USA is not signed up to OPCAT. And even if USA jails did qualify for SPT inspections, this monitoring body does not have publicly available standards by which to judge cell size, nutrition, lighting and sleeping conditions.

However, the USA is signed up to the UN’s more basic Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). And according to CAT, torture requires a particular action to have:-

• caused severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental;

  and

• been intentionally inflicted for such purposes as:-

  • obtaining information or a confession from the victim or another person,

  • punishment for a suspected or actual deed committed by the victim or another person,

  • intimidation or coercion of the victim or another person,

  • or discrimination of any kind;

  and

• been inflicted by a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions such as corporal or capital punishment is specifically excluded.

So, to consider whether Ghislaine’s conditions are torturous according to the letter (as opposed to the spirit) of the USA’s legal obligations under the international humanitarian law it has chosen to sign up to, we must establish affirmative answers to all of the following questions:-

1. Is it causing severe mental or physical pain or suffering?

   • Severity is a completely subjective concept. In healthcare, we use a scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (agony) for people to rate their pain. The major downside to this though is that one person’s 10 is another person’s 5. So this severity stipulation within CAT is the major sticking point for our conclusion.

2. Is its purpose to get information or a confession, or else to punish, intimidate, coerce or discriminate?

   • It’s difficult for third parties like us to establish the exact purpose or purposes.

3. Is it not a lawful sanction of corporal or capital punishment?

   • This is easy to answer. Yes, it is most definitely not a lawful act of corporal punishment.

4. Is it authorised or conducted by a state official?

   • Again, this is fairly easy to answer. Yes, it will be being authorised by her state prison managers and it will be being carried out by state prison officials (eg guards and cooks), although it’s possible that some of the poor cooking is being done by fellow prisoners.

Letter of the law

So, the long and the short of it is that no, according to the letter of the law, Ghislaine is not being tortured.

Spirit of the law

But really, is it right that a certain action may be judged torturous in one country yet non-torturous in another? Why is it that nations including ‘leaders of the free world’ such as the USA may belong to Club UN without ratifying OPCAT? Even signing up to the more basic CAT is optional. After all, Council of Europe member states are obliged to sign up to the CPT on top of the ECHR.

And as an aside, considering that information obtained under duress is often inaccurate, it is surely concerning that the majority (the USA along with China and Russia) of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the UN body charged with maintaining international peace and security) are OPCAT signatories.

But let’s return to the fact that what is deemed torture in one state is deemed non-torturous in another. Where is the equivalence? Where is the justice? So many of the world’s 11 million prisoners eat terrible food and live 24/7 in cramped, dark cells - with the full knowledge of their country’s officials. Others are kept alone for months and years at a time. At the very least, this is discrimination against people who are deprived of their liberty. It is surely perverse that we need to argue about semantics in order to decide if these poor people are being tortured! Just how malnourished, lonely, cramped and light deprived does a human being have to be before the law will consider protecting him or her?!

A higher law

As we are a Christian faith-inspired NGO, we also look to an additional set of rules to guide our work - God’s Laws as set out in the Bible.

The Bible has much to say about how to live in just societies. In a nutshell, it rests on how we treat one another. In the New Testament, Jesus teaches his followers ‘The Golden Rule’ as well as ‘The Greatest Commandment’:-

“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

Matthew 7:12

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Matthew 22: 36-40

Loving our neighbours - that is, others living within our culture - as ourselves is a wonderful principle, regardless of one’s faith. Let’s ask ourselves, ‘Would I wish to live day in, day out in a tiny, dark cell? Would I want to eat bland, unhealthy food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner? And would I want to live my life under constant scrutiny?’ If our answers are ‘No, No and No’ then consider: ‘How can I not speak up whilst this is happening to my neighbours?’

At Integritas Healthcare, we advocate for those who are tortured or otherwise ill-treated because we believe that every human being is made equal with innate worth and dignity. We are called to treat everyone with the kindness and compassion we ourselves would want. Taking inspiration from Matthew 25:37-39, whatever we do in the service of others, we do in love of our fellow man and in our love for God:-

“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”… “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

A glimmer of hope

We end this series with some recent good news that provides a glimmer of hope for prisoners in solitary confinement in the USA.

From next year, the State of New York has agreed to ban solitary confinement exceeding 15 days, so as to ensure compliance with the Nelson Mandela Rules. This new law will include screening for suicide risk and the development of rehabilitation units for those who would otherwise have been sent to solitary confinement.

It may only be one law, but it could be the start of a nationwide change in how detainees are treated within the USA’s penal system. It is also the beginning of being able to hold certain USA detention centres accountable for any discrimination against vulnerable patient groups who are disproportionately sent to solitary confinement and who are generally more poorly treated within many of the world’s penal institutions. So watch this space!

If you have been moved by this series on torture and you’d like to support our anti-torture & ill-treatment work, we welcome donations towards the Gerry Serrano Centre.

The Ms Maxwell Series: what's diet got to do with it?

We return to our series pegged around the topic of torture, which made British news headlines in Spring 2021 when Ghislaine Maxwell’s brother, Ian, spoke out against what he felt were torturous conditions in her New York jail. She is apparently being continually observed in a 6x9ft (1.8x2.7m) cell with no natural light and terrible food & water rations…

Previously: How small is too small?

After exploring the question of ‘What is torture?’, we looked at how to decide ‘How small is too small?’ for a jail cell. Ghislaine is in the United States of America (USA), which is not subject to inspections by the UN’s torture inspection committee, which anyway lacks published standards on living space. However, if she was transferred to a European jail, the Council of Europe (CoE) would be able to apply its own torture inspection committee’s living space standards and declare her solitary 4.9m² cell too small. Whether or not such environmental ill-treatment would be deemed to amount to torture would however be a matter of deliberation for judges at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

So what about her diet?

In his interview Ian Maxwell raised concern about Ghislaine’s food and water:-

The water that is provided through the prison is brown, and the food that she is given is very highly microwaved and basically inedible.

The Nelson Mandela Rules, which are designed to maintain a prisoner’s human rights and dignity, include guidance on nutrition:-

Rule 22:-

1. Every prisoner shall be provided by the prison administration at the usual hours with food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength, of wholesome quality and well prepared and served.

So is this true of Ghislaine’s food?

Her food is described as ‘highly microwaved’. But what does this mean? Mostly microwaved as opposed to boiled or grilled? Or microwaved for too long a period of time? Rather than speculating further as to the meaning behind this ambiguity, let’s inspect known facts.

Microwaving does not necessarily deplete food of its nutritional value. In fact, it can preserve certain vitamins and minerals better than boiling, which causes nutrients to leak into the cooking water. The very nature of a microwave is that it requires only a short period of time to heat food. However, over-cooking even by microwave does start to affect a meal’s nutritional value.

Still, there’s poor food and poorer food. Prisoners around the world have very different meals. Many have to consume unrecognisable soups and stews that are barely sufficient to sustain life, and others have reduced or even completely absent food rations as punishment.

And what about her drinking water?

Rule 22 of the Nelson Mandela Rules also states:-

2. Drinking water shall be available to every prisoner whenever he or she needs it.

But how much water does a human require? The International Committee of the Red Cross’ handbook Water, sanitation, hygiene and habitat in prisons states:-

The strict physiological needs of a human individual may be covered by 3 to 5 litres of drinking water per day. This minimum requirement increases in accordance with the climate and the amount of physical exercise taken.

The minimum amount of drinking water that must be available inside the cells and dormitories is in the order of 2 litres per person per day if the detainees are locked in for periods of up to 16 hours, and 3 to 5 litres per person per day if they are locked in for more than 16 hours or if the climate is hot.

Ghislaine does has ready access to drinking water though it is apparently brown, which of course doesn’t look appetising and may affect its taste. Such discolouration may be due to the corrosion of plumbing leaching lead into the water. However, running the water briefly before use should flush the system. Moreover, in New York City the water is monitored carefully, from delivery from upstate reservoirs to street-side sampling stations, to ensure the the risk of lead poisoning remains low.

Such safeguards do not protect many of our globe’s 11 million prisoners. Little data exists on how many have access to clean drinking water, but it definitely is a problem. In Brazil, for example, Human Rights Watch found that in some prisons water is available for only half an hour in the morning and half an hour in the evening.

What about her access to natural light?

According to her brother, Ghislaine has ‘no natural light’ in her cell. If true, this is a contravention of the Nelson Mandela Rules:-

Rule 13: All accommodation provided for the use of prisoners and in particular all sleeping accommodation shall meet all requirements of health, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and particularly to cubic content of air, minimum floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation.

Rule 14: In all places where prisoners are required to live or work:

(a) The windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light and shall be so constructed that they can allow the entrance of fresh air whether or not there is artificial ventilation;

Of course, there are greater and lesser degrees to which thousands of prisoners around the world are deprived of their right to natural light. Some, apparently like Ghislaine, are kept in cells lacking natural light but are allowed outside daily for exercise in the fresh air. This latter fact complies with another Nelson Mandela Rule:-

Rule 23:-

1. Every prisoner who is not employed in outdoor work shall have at least one hour of suitable exercise in the open air daily if the weather permits.

A prisoner, found in a dark solitary confinement block where we assessed his dental hygiene and general health

Many others though are kept without natural, or indeed any, light 24/7:-

It’s been my sad duty to visit solitary confinements in many countries across the world. And I can confirm that many regimes still subject human being to darkened solitude. If they weren’t mentally distressed upon entering such environments, then the environment itself soon rectifies this. Why is this still going on in the 21st century?!

(Dr Rachael Pickering,
one of our medical experts)

And what are the likely health consequences?

A diet lacking in fibre can cause constipation, which may be linked to bowel inflammation and even perforation.

A diet with inadequate intake of key vitamins and minerals, can lead to malnutrition. Vitamin deficiencies can cause lethargy, breathlessness, palpitations, reduced vision, gum disease, and muscle wasting to name a few. Vitamin D deficiency, which is caused by dietary deficiency and lack of access to sunlight, may cause various symptoms including bone and muscle pain, difficulty walking, muscle weakness, and increased risk of fractures. It may also impact mental wellbeing, being linked to depression and schizophrenia.

Even without associated vitamin D deficiency, lack of exposure to sunlight may contribute to low mood and fatigue, due to the brain’s reduced production of serotonin and increased production of melatonin.

So is Ghislaine Maxwell being tortured?

Next week we will reflect on the findings within this series and consider…

If these allegations are true, is Ghislaine being ill-treated?

And if so, is it ill-treatment which could be said to amount to torture?

Until next week…

Dr Esme MacKrill

PS If you’d like to support our anti-torture & ill-treatment work, we welcome donations towards the Gerry Serrano Centre.

Crucifixion: the ultimate form of torture

Today, Good Friday, is recognised by Christians around the world as the anniversary of Jesus being crucified. And so, to honour this, we are taking a short break from our series pegged around the alleged ill-treatment of Ghislaine Maxwell. Instead, we are examining crucifixion.

What is crucifixion?

Crucifixion is a torturous form of execution, more associated with history than the modern day. Its name is derived from the Latin words crucifixio and crucifixus, meaning to fix to a cross. Crucifixion crosses were made of wood and came in a variety of shapes and sizes though they generally had both vertical and horizontal beams that slotted together. That said, it is also possible to crucify someone without an actual cross, by attaching their spread arms and their feet to any suitable surface such as a tree trunk.

What are its origins?

Though it originated in other societies, the Roman Empire perfected crucifixion as a form of torture. Roman crucifixion was a long, slow journey to death with the maximum amount of fear, pain and other suffering along the way. It was the ultimate threat to those who might be tempted to step out of line.

Who got crucified?

In general, Roman crucifixion was the fate of the lowliest in society. It was inflicted upon slaves, peasants and criminals, but rarely to Roman citizens. It was famously deployed on slaves in 71 BC when 6000 followers of the rebel slave leader Spartacus were crucified along the Via Appia - the road extending south from Rome, the very heart of the Roman Empire. And zipping forward a couple of generations to history’s most famous crucifixion, on the original Good Friday in 30 or 33 AD, Jesus was crucified between two thieves:-

When they [the Romans] came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him there, along with the criminals - one on his right, the other on his left. Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
(Luke 23:32-34)

Over the next few years, it is thought that many of Jesus’ original followers were crucified - as punishment for spreading the message of Christianity. And during the subsequent two millennia in certain parts of the world, Christians - that is, followers of Jesus Christ - have sometimes suffered the same fate as their Lord.

Even today, crucifixion occasionally pops up in the news as having been used as a method of killing someone or as a means of inflicting extreme non-fatal violence.

Flogging and mocking

There is no doubt that crucifixion is a torturous form of execution. But even before Jesus picked up His cross and walked to His execution site, He was tortured in other ways.

It was not uncommon for the Romans to beat and maim their victims prior to crucifying them. A whip of three leather tails studded with metal balls and pieces of bone was used to inflict deep wounds across the condemned person’s shoulders and back. These wounds exposed muscle and could even damage internal organs. Many victims did not survive this ordeal - and so at least were spared the actual cross.

And along with the physical torture He endured, Jesus was also tortured psychologically:-

He [Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor in Jerusalem] had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified…They [the Roman soldiers] put a purple robe [a symbol of royalty] on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him.  And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!”. Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.
(Mark 27:15-20)

Crucifixion as SLOW torture

If a condemned person managed to survive his pre-crucifixion flogging, he would then have the ignominious task of carrying his own cross - or at least its horizontal crossbeam - to his site of execution. Jesus was so weak after His flogging that He had to have assistance carrying His cross. But then He finally arrived at Jerusalem’s execution site, which was named Golgotha - the local word for skull - because it sat on top of a rockface that looked remarkably like the front of a skull and can still be seen today. And there He was nailed to His cross:-

This man [Jesus] was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
(Acts 2:23)

His cross was then set upright in a hole in the ground, and He was left to hang - suspended by His nailed limbs - until He died. And today, various forms of suspension remain popular methods of torture.

A Roman crucifixion victim’s death could be a long time coming, taking up to several days. And so, as happened in the Easter Story, an executioner would sometimes inflict further injury to hasten death:-

Now it was the day of Preparation [for the Jewish feast of the Passover], and the next day was to be a special Sabbath [rest day]. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
(John 19:31-34)

Many medical papers have tried to understand the pathology underlying death from crucifixion, noting it was likely multifactorial and included the after-effects of flogging, haemorrhage and dehydration causing hypovolaemic shock, and asphyxia caused by impairment of respiratory movement. Regardless of the exact mechanism of death though, it is surely an excruciating way to die.

Why was jesus crucified?

As a Christian faith-inspired organisation, we recognise the ultimate sacrifice that Jesus made for us at Easter, giving His life for us. The pain He endured physically, spiritually and mentally are more than any human being should have to bear. But for our sake He, God on earth, entered our broken world in human form to die so that we wouldn’t have to:-

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death - even death on a cross!
(Philippians 2:6-8)

If you’d like to know more about why Jesus came to Earth and died on the cross, you might like to look at this simple cross-shaped leaflet, which we created especially for detainees wanting to understand the Easter Story:-

Click image to download PDF

But What about now?

On this Good Friday, as every Good Friday, we remember one sobering episode of barbaric violence from the First Century. Still, although it does still occasionally occur, these days crucifixion is seen as old fashioned. In its place, other - supposedly more ‘modern’ - forms of torture and execution now wreak havoc around the globe.

Why oh why do we human beings continue to inflict torture and cruel, inhuman & degrading treatment on each other? It seems that nothing will stop it. Indeed, it is tempting to think that opposing torture & ill-treatment is a completely futile endeavour!

But it’s not.

Just as Good Friday was not the end of Jesus’ story, we should not give up hoping that torture & ill-treatment will end some day. In defeating death, Jesus paved a way for our reconciliation with God and everlasting life with Him. Through that we have genuine cause for hope in a better world and a better life to come. We can look forward to that day:-

He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.
(Revelation 21:4)

Still for now, whilst still having one eye on the future, we and all other Christians must live in day-to-day obedience with God’s mandate to fight on behalf of the vulnerable:- 

Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed…
(Isaiah 1:17)

And this includes victims of torture & ill-treatment.

Happy Easter.

Dr Esme MacKrill with Dr Rachael Pickering

PS If you’d like to support our anti-torture & ill-treatment work, we welcome donations towards the Gerry Serrano Centre.

The Ms Maxwell Series: How small is too small?

Last week: what is torture?

Last week we started to revisit the topic of torture as it had made the British news once again when Ghislaine Maxwell’s brother, Ian, spoke out against the apparently torturous conditions in her New York jail. Mr Maxwell reported his sister is being held unnecessarily under constant surveillance, in a 6x9ft (1.8x2.7m) cell with no natural light, and with terrible food & water rations.

However, as we discussed, deciding whether Ghislaine is being tortured is complex. The United Nations (UN) Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) contains a complex definition of torture, which can be difficult to interpret. And, although the United States of America (USA) has signed the CAT, it has not signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). So the UN’s Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT) cannot inspect her cell within one of the USA’s many prisons and other places of detention.

Even if the USA was signed up to OPCAT, the SPT does not have published standards by which to judge whether - as Ian Maxwell claims - Ghislaine’s living space is indeed too cramped, too short on natural light & too lacking in privacy or if her food is really all that bad.

However, if Ghislaine was incarcerated in Europe, she would be held by a member state of the Council of Europe (CoE). All such states are automatically signed up to both its European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its more detailed Convention on the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which, through inspections by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), tries to ensure that the ECHR’s prohibition of torture is respected.

How small is too small?

So then, if for some reason Ghislaine was extradited to Europe, she and her cell may just be lucky enough to be inspected by a delegation from the CPT, which does have well-known standards. Let’s consider purely its standard on living space, which is the most objectively assessable of the complaints raised by Ian Maxwell on her behalf…

According to the CPT, each detainee should have ‘6m² for a single-occupancy cell + sanitary facility’ or ‘4m² of living space per prisoner in a multiple-occupancy cell + fully-partitioned sanitary facility’. By this definition then, Ghislaine’s single-occupancy 6x9ft (1.8x2.7m) cell - at ~4.9m² - is too small. Whether or not it could be considered ill-treatment amounting to torture - as per either the UN’s definition or the deliberation of judges sitting at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) - is a far more complex, thorny question.

How does nelson mandela come into this issue?

Within International Humanitarian Law, prisoners’ basic needs must be met and their human dignity maintained. And so, in 2015, the United Nations revised its 1955 Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, now known as the Nelson Mandela Rules - as the late President of South Africa was, in his earlier years, very famously ill-treated whilst behind bars.

These 122 rules provide guidance on all aspects of a prisoner’s journey from admission right through to release. Regarding solitary confinement, rules 44 and 45 state:-

44. For the purpose of these rules, solitary confinement shall refer to the confinement of prisoners for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact. Prolonged solitary confinement shall refer to solitary confinement for a time period in excess of 15 consecutive days.

45. 1. Solitary confinement shall be used only in exceptional cases as a last resort, for as short a time as possible and subject to independent review, and only pursuant to the authorization by a competent authority. It shall not be imposed by virtue of a prisoner’s sentence.

What about her lack of privacy?

We do not know the exact amount of time per day that Ghislaine is confined to her cell. We also do not know whether she is allowed day-to-day interaction with other detainees. However, in his interview Ian Maxwell stated the following:-

Ghislaine has been in prison now for nearly 250 days and counting… she is under 24 hour round-the-clock surveillance with ten cameras, including one that moves and tracks her movements. And on top of that there are four guards that are looking at her, and presumably there is another guard looking at the camera feeds. She is not allowed to move into the corners of her cell and she’s not allowed to be within two and a half feet of the cell door. That is her existence every day.

As we mentioned last week, Ian Maxwell intimated that - subsequent to Mr Epstein’s high profile suicide last year whilst in prison - Ghislaine is under constant surveillance due to the authorities’ fear that she too may try to end her life whilst in custody. However, he does not believe that she is a suicide risk, making this level of monitoring a ‘grotesque over-reaction’.

What should be done to prevent suicide in custody?

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has written guidance on suicide prevention in jails and prisons. This document explains that a thorough risk assessment process should be completed for every prisoner when they are admitted to the prison and advises on appropriate management techniques as and when necessary.

Adequate monitoring of truly suicidal prisoners is necessary, given that hanging can cause serious brain damage within three minutes and death within five to seven minutes.

The use of camera technology has become increasingly popular as an alternative to prison guard watches. Even so it still requires surveillance of camera footage and prompt action. The guidance say:-

Moreover, most inmates dislike constant observation if it occurs without emotional support and respect. Therefore, camera surveillance should never be utilized as a substitute for the officer’s observation of the suicidal inmate and, if used, should only supplement the direct observation of staff.

If Ghislaine’s New York jailors have conducted risk assessments that clearly identify her being high risk of suicide, then constant surveillance may be a necessity for her own safety. However, if Ian Maxwell’s claims are true and her jailors are acting purely out of an excessive fear for their own reputation, then her level of monitoring is truly excessive and could even be counter productive.

But what’s in a name?

However, let’s for a moment leave aside the varying degrees of both lack of privacy and cramped cells endured by Ghislaine and very many others of the world’s ~11 million prisoners. Instead, let’s consider the undeniable psychological and physical health consequences to keeping prisoners in any sort of secure environment where perpetual confinement and frequent observation are the orders of the day…

The COVID-19 pandemic lockdown has imposed on a massive percentage of the world’s free citizens has given us a tiny taste of the psychological sequelae of imprisonment. It is therefore unsurprising that detainees, especially those who have been kept in confined conditions, suffer from anxiety, panic, insomnia, paranoia, aggression and depression. These psychological symptoms in turn can increase the risk of self-harm and suicide.

Detainees kept under such conditions are also at higher risk of a range of physical effects such as joint and back pain, deterioration of eyesight, lethargy and cachexia.

Are such conditions ill-treatment? And could they be said to amount to torture, as defined by the UN’s CAT or as interpreted by the ECtHR’s judges? You try to decide. But either way, it’s neither necessary nor proportionate punishment for offending human beings in general to be kept in such conditions.

So what about her diet and exposure to sunlight?

Although the above symptoms may be caused purely by psychological stress, they cannot often be separated from the physical consequences of poor diet and lack of sunlight. And so next week we will focus on Ian’s claims that Ghislaine receives practically inedible food and is not given enough exposure to natural light.

How may such allegations be assessed?

What are the potential health consequences of such ill-treatments?

And are they ill-treatments that could be said to amount to torture?

Until next time…

Dr Esme MacKrill with Dr Rachael Pickering

The Ms Maxwell Series: What is torture?

Torture made the British news once again last week when Ghislaine Maxwell’s brother, Ian, spoke out against the allegedly torturous conditions in her New York jail. She stands accused of helping the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein - the former friend & associate of British Prince Andrew - to groom young girls for sexual exploitation.

Currently on remand whilst awaiting a trial scheduled for July, she has been persistently denied bail. Ian Maxwell intimated that, subsequent to Mr Epstein’s high profile suicide last year whilst in prison, she is under constant surveillance due to the authorities’ fear that she too may try to end her life whilst in custody. Apparently she is being continually observed in a 6x9ft (1.8x2.7m) cell with no natural light and terrible food & water rations...

To our mind, an obvious question lurking behind this storyline is…

What is torture and who gets to decide when it’s been committed?

Let’s find out…

What exactly is torture?

In 1988 The United States of America (USA) signed the United Nations (UN) Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). This convention was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly as a way of upholding both Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):-

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. (Article 5 of UNDHR)

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. (Article 7 of ICCPR)

Article 5 of CAT defines torture in a very specific way:-

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

This sounds most comprehensive, doesn’t it? Is it in fact too comprehensive and, at the same time, too lenient? Because now we’re wondering…

• How do we decide if someone else’s pain or suffering is severe?

• Why is a torturous action suddenly non-torturous if it’s been done by people other than agents of the state acting in official capacities?

• And why are certain undeniably painful and (some might say) barbaric actions - such as flogging, finger or hand amputation, and death by stoning - non-torturous if they are the outpourings of a particular country’s laws?

Alongside CAT, there is the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). This was produced subsequent to CAT, to ensure that State Parties - that is, countries signed up to CAT - could be held accountable to it:-

The objective of the present Protocol [OPCAT] is to establish a system of regular visits undertaken by independent international and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Though as its name suggests, OPCAT is optional. So a country signing up to CAT but not OPCAT will not have the UN’s Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT) inspecting its prisons and other places of detention. The USA is yet to sign OPCAT. But even if it did qualify for SPT inspections, this monitoring body does not have published standards by which to judge knotty problems like how small is too small a prison cell.

What happens if we throw geopolitics into the mix?

As well as being an American citizen incarcerated in her own country, Ghislaine also holds two European citizenships - English and French. So it would be interesting to consider how this situation might be judged if she’d been arrested whilst in Europe…

In comparison to worldwide countries signed up to CAT, all European countries (except for Belarus, which - in common with the USA - still performs executions and so is ineligible for membership) are members of the Council of Europe (CoE), which means that they are signed up to both its European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its more detailed Convention on the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which details a mechanism for ensuring that the ECHR’s prohibition of torture is respected:-

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. (Article 3 of ECHR)

There shall be established a European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter referred to as “the Committee” [the CPT]). The Committee shall, by means of visits, examine the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty with a view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of such persons from torture and from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. (Article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention of Torture)

Therefore, unlike the UN’s optional buy-in to CAT and OPCAT, all CoE member states are obliged to comply with Article 3 of the ECHR and the Convention on the Prevention of Torture. In other words, every European prison outside of Belarus is fair game for a mandatory inspection by the CPT, which is to the Convention on the Prevention of Torture as the SPT is to OPCAT.

Moreover, the ECHR does not actually define the torture that it bans. Instead, judges at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) play the ECHR as a living legal instrument when deciding if an alleged case of ill-treatment could be said to amount to torture.

So then, what does this mean for Ghislaine?

Next week we will start to explore issues relating to Ghislaine’s brother’s claims about her cramped cell, inedible food, constant surveillance, and lack of natural light.

How may such allegations be assessed?

What are the potential health consequences of such ill-treatments?

And are they ill-treatments that could be said to amount to torture?

Until next week…

Dr Esme MacKrill with Dr Rachael Pickering