stress the “political language” aspect of rights. They aim to use rights as catalysts
for bottom-up political movements, but they deemphasize demands of legality.
Warning against such approaches, political Scientist Amy Gutmann (1949-) writes: “Pro-
liferation of human rights to include rights that are not clearly necessary to protect the basic
agency or needs or dignity of persons cheapens the purpose of human rights and corre-
spondingly weakens the resolve of potential enforcers. [It] also makes it far more difficult to
achieve [...] broad intercultural assent to rights [...]”.12.6.2 Rights to Integrity of the Person
It is commonly assumed that there are two (or three, depending on how one counts)
rights that protect the integrity of the person:
- the right to life, and
- the right to be free from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
These rights are the ones that are most directly related to the continued existence
of the human person, who is the right holder. The right to life in particular is
inseparable from the existence of a right holder, to the extent that it has been stated
that the right to life is not just another right but sets forth the necessary precondition
for the enjoyment of all other rights.
Torture and Inhumane TreatmentIn connection with the second right, usually a
distinction is made between (1) torture and (2) inhuman and degrading treatment.
Precisely where the dividing line is drawn is not fully clear, and this is an issue
that is still in a state of flux. Initially, the main difference between torture and
inhuman treatment was taken to be that torture was more severe and more painful
than inhuman treatment. Using this parameter, it seems to be very difficult to draw a
precise distinction about where inhuman treatment ends and torture begins.
Nowadays, it has become more common to associate torture with inhuman
treatment that is performed by the state for a specific purpose such as gathering
information or punishing or intimidating the victim.
The United Nations Convention Against Torture, Article 1 defines torture as follows:
“For the purposes of this Convention, 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 acquies-
cence 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 has the benefit of making the assessment whether a particular case involves
torture easier. However, since torture is singled out in the conscience of mankind as
one of the most heinous crimes possible, we have to ask whether what makes torture
12 Human Rights 275