Perception, practice and proximity. Qualifying threats as psychological torture in international law

Abstract

Background: International law prohibits threats made by state officials when amounting to torture or other forms of ill-treatment (hereaf-ter “ill-treatment”). Yet, there remains a press-ing need to better distinguish in practice the threatening acts which amount to torture or ill-treatment (and as prohibited) from acts which fall short. Responding to this need, this article reviews the literature and offers a discussion towards functionally conceptualising and, in turn, qualifying threats as torture or ill-treatment. Method: Following a systematic full-text search of databases with the relevant English-language keywords, journal articles, NGO reports, case-law and UN documents were selected based on their relevance for concep-tual, evidentiary and legal critique of threats-as-torture. Discussion: Prevailing legal reasoning around threats-as-torture centres on the words “real, credible and immediate”, with inadequate ex-plication as to their application. To this end, this article proposes that an assessment of the perception of practice and proximity of state au-thorities to harm could be used to help qualify threats as “real, credible and immediate” and therefore torturous.