Torture
Will be Conquered by the Rule of Law
Torture. It has existed from the times of ancient recorded
history, and it certainly has been much in the news lately.
The United States is having to confront evidence of prisoner
abuse in Iraq so callous as to constitute torture in the minds
of many, both at home and around the world. And when "the U.S."
has to confront a problem, because ours is a democracy, the
people of the U.S. have to confront that problem. But ... there
are many who turn away. They do not want to think about the
disgusting and sickening images, or to consider the possibility
that the U.S. military, or its private contractors, might be
torturers acting in the name of the people of the United States.
The experience is thus simultaneous and mutually-exclusive:
a desire to accept responsibility for informed self-government
and a desire to avoid examining a thoroughly unpleasant subject.
1
Where
to begin?
First, it is helpful to adopt a common understanding of the
terms we read and hear. For example, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
said at his news conference on May 6, 2004, that he was not
sure whether the actions of the military police and military
intelligence teams involving the prisoners detained in Iraq's
Abu Ghraib facility, transmitted around the world in description
and photos, legally constituted torture. Is that correct?
The definition of torture under
international law is clear and unambiguous. In summary, it is:
- severe physical or mental pain or suffering,
- intentionally inflicted,
- under government auspices,
- in order to elicit information or confession; to punish;
or to intimidate or coerce. 2
An absolute prohibition against torture is embodied in international
human rights law. Torture is considered unacceptable under any
circumstances, and no emergency or extreme situation can justify
its use. 3
Coercion techniques are designed to break down the
resistance of the prisoner for on-going interrogation. U.S.
military and intelligence operations freely admit that they
utilize these "stress and duress" techniques but argue
that these methods do not fall within the definition of torture.
4 "Stress and duress" techniques include a litany
of experiences designed to disorient the prisoner and reduce
his or her emotional strength, including (a) sensory
deprivation (hoods, goggles with painted-over lenses,
earplugs, forcing the prisoner to wear heavy gloves, removal
of all contact with the outside world, removal of all familiar
cultural cues, thin and tasteless food served irregularly and
infrequently, removal of natural day/night rhythms, removal
from any exposure to outside light or air; lack of any semblance
of routine; moving the prisoner from one location to another
and another and another); (b) sensory overload
(exposure to extremes of heat and/or cold; dousing with cold
water; bombardment with harsh, loud noises; confinement to spaces
too small to lie or sit in comfortably; angrily shouting at
the prisoner for no apparent reason; forcing the prisoner to
stand or remain in awkward or painful poses for hours; sleep
deprivation); (c) humiliation (naked imprisonment;
removal of all personal privacy; inflicting culturally humiliating
situations; sexual degradation); (d) threats
(of ill-treatment; of reprisals against family members; of transfer
to other locations, e.g., Guantanamo or countries known to practice
torture; of drowning, accomplished through "water boarding:"
submersions strapped to a board); and (e) infliction of "moderate"
pain (beating; withholding pain medication).
"Isolated, confused, weary, hungry, frightened, and tormented,
[the prisoner] would gradually be reduced to a seething collection
of simple needs, all of them controlled by his interrogators.
The key to filling all those needs would be the same:to
talk." 5
In addition, some U.S. intelligence units practice what they
call "extraordinary rendition."
In the 1980s, this euphemism hid the U.S. practice of kidnaping
people accused of crimes from lawless countries, e.g. Lebanon,
and transporting them to the U.S. It has evolved to include
U.S. kidnaping and transporting accused individuals from one
foreign country to another. And, it has also come to mean "packaging"
and transferring detainees in the U.S. "war on terror" to foreign
locations for detention and interrogation. These locations to
which foreigners are transported include Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
Bagram AFB Afghanistan, and, most disconcerting of all, to countries
whose intelligence services use severe physical torture, including
Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan.
6 The Washington Post,
Dec. 26, 2002, quoted an anonymous U.S. official as saying,
"We don't kick the [expletive] out of them. We send them to
other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them."
Some interrogators instead use psychological manipulation
to elicit cooperation. 7
These sessions include instilling in the interrogation subject
the sense that there is no longer a reason to resist sharing
information with the interrogator, for example, by implying
that a fellow-detainee has already "talked." Secrets, "networks,"
training methods, or plans of the subject or the subject's organization,
previously determined from another source, can be used as a
tool to reduce resistance. Induced fear through techniques such
as staging, but not actually conducting, beatings within earshot,
can break down resistance. Gaining rapport with and the confidence
of the subject, e.g. through facile use of the subject's indigenous
language, assists in the productivity of the interrogations.
Interrogators may use the subject's religion or cultural customs
as a method to convince the subject that the "proper" behavior
is to share sensitive information with the captor.
Recognition and enforcement of human rights is antithetical
to torture and abuse. Underlying the notion of "human rights"
is the world view that all human beings are born free and equal
in dignity and rights. Basic rights do not come to a person
as an extension of citizenship or as a gift of government. Basic
human rights derive from the individual's existence as a part
of humanity. Each member of civil society must claim his or
her human rights, assert the importance of universal human rights,
and protect human rights for others. The Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, setting forth internationally recognized human
rights, was adopted and proclaimed by United Nations General
Assembly Resolution 217A(III) on Dec. 10, 1948. A copy of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights is in the appendix
and is also accessible at http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html.
The
debate about the "ticking bomb scenario"
Setting aside for a moment international law's absolute prohibition
against torture, the debate over whether or not to use torture
inevitably comes down to the so-called "ticking bomb scenario."
This is shorthand for a hypothetical in which someone is captured
who knows the whereabouts of a time bomb, set to explode soon,
with catastrophic results. Under the "ticking bomb" hypothetical,
should torture be used to elicit the information necessary to
save lives? Alan Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard University
Law School, who does not favor torture, argues that torture
inevitably will be used in a "ticking bomb" situation, and that
since torture is going to be used, there should be court oversight
of the process to ensure some form of accountability. Dershowitz
proposes establishing a warrant procedure for non-lethal torture,
whereby government officials could apply to a judge for permission
to torture a detainee in a "ticking bomb" situation to elicit
information that would allow them to avert the tragedy.
Dershowitz's opinion is in sharp contrast with others who also
recognize that torture will occasionally be used, but who argue
strenuously that society must not formally approve of torture.
The no-torture advocates argue that Dershowitz's torture warrant
procedure, legalizing torture under certain conditions, would
be a "slippery slope." Once on that path, the no-torture advocates
say, it would be hard to stop. They fear that limited "legal"
torture would become gradually less limited because the circumstances
under which it would be allowed would creep into more expanded,
"approved" use situations. The no-torture advocates assert that
approving torture as a matter of public policy is quite different
from recognizing that sometimes torture will be used as a desperate,
last-ditch tactic in traumatic situations, and that the torturer
should answer to the rule of law after the emergency situation
has passed.
Policy
roots of post-September 11, 2001, U.S. military and intelligence
detentions
After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack, the U.S. retaliated
with military force in Afghanistan. In its efforts to find and
capture those responsible for the attack, the military not only
captured Taliban and al Qaeda combatants, it also paid bounty
money for the capture of combatants. Members of local groups
and tribes responded swiftly, and within months, the U.S. military
had custody of hundreds of prisoners.
At that point, eager to gain information, the Bush Administration
made a fateful decision to equate the "war on terror" with the
"ticking bomb scenario," and remove policy proscriptions against
abusive detentions. Cofer Black, former head of the CIA's Counterterrorism
Center, reported to a joint hearing of the House and Senate
intelligence committees on Sept. 26, 2002, "There was a before
9/11, and there was an after 9/11. After 9/11, the gloves came
off." The President declared that captured al Qaeda and Taliban
combatants are not entitled to the Geneva Conventions because
they do not represent a nation - they are "enemy combatants,"
a term previously unused in international law, but applied by
the Administration to individuals on an ad hoc basis, without
published standards or procedures.
In addition to jettisoning the Geneva Conventions for "enemy
combatant" detainees, military regulations governing military
detentions were also disregarded. In an attempt to gain information
useful in the search for Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants,
the U.S. established detention facilities in South Asia, Guantanamo
Bay, and elsewhere. At these detention facilities, the conduct
of the jailers and interrogators was not restrained by international
standards. In 2003, this standard of conduct for detentions
and interrogations was exported to military detention facilities
in Iraq, to improve intelligence gathering useful to the U.S.
military effort in Iraq following the U.S. invasion. The well-publicized
pre-interrogation and interrogation techniques practiced at
Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, descriptions and photos that so
shocked the U.S. population, were the result of the adoption
of this standard of conduct.
These detention facilities stretching from South Asia to Iraq
to Guantanamo, those known to the world and those which are
shrouded in complete secrecy, are lawless enclaves. The jailers
and interrogators in these prisons have been given permission
to operate outside the rule of law in order to fulfill their
mission: to find those responsible for the September 11, 2001,
attack and to prevent another attack on U.S. interests.
Torture
spawns more problems
Does torture work? Does it elicit accurate, actionable intelligence
information? The verdict is mixed. Some experienced interrogators
flatly declare that detainees who are tortured eventually say
anything their interrogators want to hear, whether it is true
or not, just to make the torture stop. On the other hand, U.S.
military intelligence claims that its post-September 11, 2001,
use of mass roundups, secret detentions, and "stress and duress"
techniques has saved lives by eliciting valuable (classified)
information that has been used to thwart further death and destruction.
Even if true, it nonetheless ought to give the public pause
that the interrogation techniques used by the U.S. military
and intelligence units today are the same as those used in the
former Soviet Union, by the French in Algeria, by UK forces
in Northern Ireland, and by Israeli defense forces interrogating
Arabs in the West Bank and in Israel. And the lesson from all
those nations' experiences is that the losses that accompany
abandoning the rule of law are not balanced by alleged success
in eliciting information.
In addition, there is no assurance that these techniques of
torture and abuse are being practiced on individuals who can
even provide information. Prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison
in Baghdad, Iraq include the innocent and the guilty. The International
Committee of the Red Cross reported that coalition intelligence
officers themselves conceded that 70% - 90% of the detainees
in Iraq are being held by mistake.
One very real danger that flows from U.S. use of abusive detention
is the likely reciprocity that will ensue from other nations'
military and intelligence agents against U.S. troops and civilians.
Already, some foreign leaders have announced that they are adopting
the U.S. example of indefinite, uncharged, secret detention
in the name of national security. When U.S. troops and civilians
are captured overseas, will the Geneva Conventions and international
human rights law protect them? Several well-publicized incidents
of violence and grisly murder in Pakistan and Iraq underscore
the inevitability of retribution by violent extremist groups,
enraged by U.S. policy and practice.
Another negative result is that the U.S. civilian leadership's
approval of and the U.S. military's use of torture, humiliation,
and degradation undercuts U.S. leadership in the world community.
From its position as a nation that openly disobeys international
law and human rights standards, the U.S. will have difficulty
convincing other nations to abide by international laws or to
cooperate with U.S. efforts against international terrorism
or human rights abuses.
Recommendations
from the human rights advocates
The Bush Administration's policies in the "war on terrorism"
evidence a mind-set that looks ominously as if it believes itself
to be above the law. President Bush's unilateral "preemptive
strike doctrine" (preventative war) in Iraq brushed aside the
international community and international norms. Rather than
utilizing seasoned diplomacy and multi-national pressure to
find illegal weapons or (a later rationale) correct the human
rights abuses in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the Administration
abrogated international law by invading Iraq. Likewise, the
Administration's decision to use coercion techniques, torture,
and rendition is evidence that this Administration does not
feel bound by the rule of law.
The U.S. should adopt a comprehensive prohibition against the
use of torture under any circumstances as a violation of internationally-recognized
universal human rights. Such policy would constitute recognition
of the rule of law as a binding principle and policy of the
United States. Recognition of international human rights standards
would strengthen international norms that protect U.S. troops
and citizens, along with the rest of the world.
On May 7, 2004, a group of prominent human rights advocacy
groups 8 wrote
to President Bush, urging action to change the policies that
led to the abuses at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison. Adoption of
their recommendations would create the policy shift required
to re-establish adherence to the rule of law in overseas U.S.
military and other detention operations. The May 7 letter recommended
that the President:
I. Establish clear prohibitions backed by adequate penalties
A. Immediately ban "stress and duress"
interrogation and take immediate action to insure that all
interrogation and detention practices are fully consistent
with international human rights and humanitarian law.
B. Immediately ban any action taken anywhere in the world
that would violate the prohibition on "cruel and unusual"
punishment if conducted in the United States.
C. Immediately ban secret and incommunicado detention; specifically,
mandate that the names of all detainees be published.
D. Immediately ban the transfer of prisoners to countries
with a pattern of using torture in interrogation.
E. Immediately ban the use of civilian contractors in conducting
interrogations.
F. Ensure that appropriate criminal penalties exist for any
person involved in torturing or otherwise abusing detainees
- no matter where in the world the conduct occurs.
II. Mandate strong enforcement
A. Permit immediate access to every prisoner
by independent monitors, including the International Committee
of the Red Cross, appropriate UN officials, and human rights
organizations, including the ability to interview prisoners
in private, and conduct medical evaluations in accordance
with the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation
of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
or Punishment.
B. Permit all detainees to have access to family members
and physicians, based on a recognition that secret and incommunicado
detention is at the root of much of the prisoner abuse.
C. Ensure that there is a record available to determine whether
any abuses occurred by videotaping all interrogations and
other interaction by military and intelligence personnel with
detainees.
D. Request significant increases in funding for the inspector
general offices in every agency involved in any form of interrogation
or detention of prisoners, and issue an explicit mandate to
each such office to monitor interrogations and detention.
E. Pay restitution. Provide redress and compensation in restitution
to those detainees found to have been victims of torture or
inhumane treatment.
III. Provide public review and full disclosure
A. Release the results of investigation
into the abuse of detainees, including the Department of Defense
investigation into deaths at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan,
in December, 2002, and investigations concerning interrogation
and detention methods and procedures.
B. Work with the Congress to appoint an investigating commission
of persons of unquestioned integrity and independence to examine
all aspects of U.S. interrogation practices, including the
transfer of detainees to other countries.
C. Disclose publicly all interrogation manuals, instructions
and guidance governing the conduct of detention and interrogation.
These are sweeping recommendations, and some of them would
represent a sea change in current U.S. detention and interrogation
policy. Some could be immediately implemented by presidential
order. Others should be examined in open, transparent public
discussion. The beginning of that discussion must be a recognition
that the rule of law is the only lasting solution to the suffering
that occurs when individuals, groups, or nations perpetrate
acts that degrade the inherent dignity and worth of each human
being.
1 Conversations
about the implications of public policy on torture reflect both
intellectual and emotional responses by those involved in the
discussion. Neither is sufficient by itself. Establishing an
intellectual understanding of the language, the underlying U.S.
national policy, the efficacy of that policy, and recommendations
for changes in that policy does not imply that our emotional
responses are unimportant or inappropriate. But emotional responses
about such a sensitive topic tend to paralyze common understanding
and problem solving. Thus, this report does not include a recitation
of the details of individual suffering.
2 As
defined in the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: "[T]he 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." - Pt. I, Art. 1, para.
1, Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly in Dec. 1984, entered into force on June 26, 1987).
The U.S. Senate's ratification of this convention was accompanied
by caveats to the definition of torture. Note the language in
italics, restricting the scope of the U.N. definition of torture:
"In order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically
intended to inflict severe physical or mental
pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to
prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from:
the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe
physical pain or suffering; the administration or application,
or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering
substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly
the senses or the personality; the threat of imminent
death; or the threat that another person will imminently be
subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the
administration or application of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the
senses or personality." (emphasis added.)
3 The
prohibition of torture is among the human rights that is "non-derogable"
(inviolable under any circumstances) under international law.
- Art. 7, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on Dec. 16,
1966, entered into force on March 23, 1976).
4 In
the UK and Israel, these procedures are taught under the name
"R2I" techniques - resistance to interrogation.
5 Mark
Bowden, "The Dark Art of Interrogation," Atlantic Monthly
(Oct. 2003), available at http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/10/bowden.
6 An
example is the notorious case of Mahar Arar, who held dual Canadian-Syrian
citizenship. Mr. Arar was detained at a New York City airport
in September 2002 while en route home to Canada from the Middle
East. He was interrogated for nearly two weeks in New York and
then was shipped to Jordan. He was interrogated and tortured
there before his transport to Syria, where he was imprisoned
and tortured for weeks before being returned to his home in
Toronto, apparently having been deemed innocent of any terrorism-related
charges.
7 It
is generally accepted that chemical inducements, so-called "truth
serums," are not effective. They work by reducing the subject's
inhibitions, but the interrogator is hard pressed to separate
fact from fantasy in the subject's ensuing flood of verbiage.
8 Amnesty
International USA, Global Rights, Human Rights First, Human
Rights Watch, International League for Human Rights, Jacob Blaustein
Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, Minnesota Advocates
for Human Rights, Physicians for Human Rights USA, and RFK Memorial
Center for Human Rights. The entire letter, with attachments,
can be accessed at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/iraq/iraq_detainees_bush_let_050704.pdf
APPENDIX
Universal
Declaration of Human Rights
PREAMBLE
1. Whereas recognition of the inherent
dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members
of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice
and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted
in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind,
and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy
freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want
has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common
people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to
have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny
and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the
rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly
relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter
reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the
dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights
of men and women and have determined to promote social progress
and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve,
in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of
universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms
is of the greatest importance for the full realization of
this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims
THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all
nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of
society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall
strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these
rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and
international, to secure their universal and effective recognition
and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves
and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal
in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience
and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights
and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction
of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property,
birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be
made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international
status of the country or territory to which a person belongs,
whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under
any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty
and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude;
slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their
forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or
to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere
as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled
without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination
in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement
to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective
remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating
the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or
by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary
arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to
a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations
and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence
has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law in a public trial at which he has had all
the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account
of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence,
under national or international law, at the time when it was
committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the
one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was
committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary
interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence,
nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has
the right to the protection of the law against such interference
or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom
of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including
his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and
to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions
genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary
to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality
nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without
any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have
the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled
to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its
dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and
full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit
of society and is entitled to protection by society and the
State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property
alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change
his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community
with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion
or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion
and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive and impart information
and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom
of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part
in the government of his country, directly or through freely
chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service
in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority
of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and
genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage
and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting
procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has
the right to social security and is entitled to realization,
through national effort and international co-operation and
in accordance with the organization and resources of each
State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable
for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to
free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions
of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to
equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable
remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence
worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by
other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions
for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure,
including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic
holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard
of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself
and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical
care and necessary social services, and the right to security
in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood,
old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond
his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care
and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock,
shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education.
Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental
stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical
and professional education shall be made generally available
and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on
the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of
the human personality and to the strengthening of respect
for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote
understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations,
racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities
of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education
that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate
in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and
to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral
and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary
or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28 ..
Everyone is entitled to a social and international
order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration
can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community
in which alone the free and full development of his personality
is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone
shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined
by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition
and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting
the just requirements of morality, public order and the general
welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised
contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted
as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage
in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction
of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Reviewed: 8/24/05
More
on Civil Liberties |
