TORTURE, CONFESSIONS, AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: LEGAL AND ETHICAL CONCERNS

Povzetek

Torture and coerced confessions continue to challenge the integrity of criminal justice systems despite their absolute prohibition under international law. Although instruments such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provide clear normative frameworks, their enforcement across domestic jurisdictions remains inconsistent. This article applies a qualitative comparative methodology to examine six jurisdictions: Germany, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Nigeria, and South Africa through analysis of constitutional provisions, statutory rules, judicial decisions, and secondary literature. Using a doctrinal and governance-based approach, the study evaluates how procedural safeguards, judicial oversight, and institutional accountability mechanisms function in practice, and whether local self-government plays any meaningful role in curbing abuses. The findings reveal that Germany and the United Kingdom maintain comparatively robust protections, yet even they face pressures under exceptional circumstances such as counterterrorism or urgent criminal investigations. Pakistan and India demonstrate systemic weaknesses, including limited access to counsel and reliance on confession evidence, while Nigeria and South Africa highlight the disjunction between constitutional prohibitions and persistent institutional impunity. Most significantly, the study identifies a governance vacuum at the local level: across all six jurisdictions, municipal or community-based mechanisms are either absent or underpowered, leaving victims with little immediate recourse. The article concludes that the prohibition of torture cannot be secured through criminalization alone; it requires active judicial enforcement, empowered oversight bodies, and strengthened local governance structures to transform international commitments into practical guarantees of human rights.