#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

The case involved terrorist suspects in the custody of British security forces in Northern Ireland during the early 1970s. While detained, they were subjected to a systematic programme of treatment designed to make them reveal information and to make them more compliant in their future dealings with the security forces (i.e., to become informers). The programme was clearly planned and authorised, and went by the name of 'the Five Techniques'. These included such practices as wall-standing (being made to stand inches from a wall for anything up to 20 hours with limbs outstretched), sleep deprivation, subjection to intense noise, hooding, and withholding of food. The case was first considered by the Council of Europe's Commission on Human Rights (a non- determinative, non-judicial body that is now defunct), which concluded that these combined techniques did amount to 'torture'. The UK government accepted these findings and promptly denounced the earlier practices. However, somewhat surprisingly, the ECtHR then concluded that this was 'merely' a case of inhuman or degrading treatment, indicating perhaps a reluctance to classify psychological techniques as torture. Some of the minority tried to address this by arguing that any activity that aims at breaking an individual's will should be classified as torture, whether it involves actual pain or mere discomfort. This was not approved by the majority, however.

Ireland v UK