The Status of White Torture in International Criminal Law: A Comparative Analysis of the Rome Statute and the Convention against Torture

Authors

    Mehran Bahman Department of Law, ShK.C., Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
    Seyed Abbas Jazayeri * Department of Law, ShK.C., Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran 4679376716@iau.ir
    Morteza Sadeghi Dehsahraei Department of Law, ShK.C., Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran

Keywords:

White torture, Rome Statute, International Criminal Court, crime against humanity, severe mental suffering, psychological torture

Abstract

White torture constitutes a systematic set of psychologically destructive techniques that directly target the psyche and personal identity of the victim without leaving overt physical traces. Methods such as prolonged solitary confinement, sensory deprivation, manipulation of temporal and spatial perception, and continuous humiliation are among the principal manifestations of this form of torture. Owing to its hidden and intangible nature, white torture frequently remains outside the effective scope of many traditional legal systems. The present study examines the extent to which the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) provides a legal framework capable of identifying and prosecuting perpetrators of white torture. This research adopts a descriptive–analytical methodology with a comparative approach. The findings indicate that the Rome Statute—particularly through its explicit reference to “severe mental suffering” in Article 7(2)(e), the omission of the “specific purpose” requirement (in contrast to the Convention against Torture of 1984), and the definition of conduct committed against persons “in custody or under the control” of the perpetrator—offers a theoretically favorable basis for the recognition of white torture. However, the absence of a clear standard for assessing the severity of psychological suffering, the inherent difficulty of proving such forms of torture due to the lack of physical evidence, and the heavy burden of proof imposed on victims and prosecutors together constitute serious practical obstacles to the criminal prosecution of perpetrators of white torture. The conclusion of the study is that the effective realization of the capacities embedded in the Rome Statute requires the formulation of a coherent and intelligent criminal policy, the establishment of transparent evaluative criteria, and the strengthening of international cooperation—measures that play a fundamental role in safeguarding human rights and protecting human dignity within the framework of international criminal law.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Schabas WA. An Introduction to the International Criminal Court. 5th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016.

2. Werle G, Jessberger F. Principles of International Criminal Law. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2020.

3. Prosecutor v. Delalić et al. (Čelebići), Judgment, Trial Chamber, IT-96-21-T. 1998.

4. McCoy AW. A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror. New York: Metropolitan Books; 2006.

5. Grassian S. Psychiatric effects of solitary confinement. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy. 2006;22:325-83.

6. Pérez-Sales P. Psychological Torture: Definition, Evaluation and Measurement. New York: Routledge; 2017.

7. CIA. KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Manual1963.

8. Massfeld J. White Torture and International Criminal Law. Journal of International Criminal Justice. 2009;7(4):873-95.

9. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Torture and ill-treatment: A global overview. 2020.

10. Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, Judgment, Trial Chamber VI, ICC-01/04-02/06. 2019.

11. Burgers JH, Danelius H. The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Handbook on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff; 1988.

12. Hall C. Article 7. In: Triffterer O, editor. Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Munich: C.H. Beck; 2008. p. 177-228.

13. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, (1969).

14. International Criminal Court. Elements of Crimes. The Hague: ICC; 2011.

15. Prosecutor v. Katanga, Judgment, Trial Chamber II, ICC-01/04-01/07. 2014.

16. Meisenberg S, Stegmiller I. The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia: Assessing Their Contribution to International Criminal Law. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press; 2016.

17. Prosecutor v. Tadić, Judgment, Appeals Chamber, IT-94-1-A. 1999.

18. Ireland v. United Kingdom, Judgment, Series A no. 25. 1978.

19. United Nations Committee Against Torture. Concluding Observations on Ireland, CAT/C/IRL/CO/2. 2013.

20. Méndez JE. Interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. United Nations General Assembly, 2011.

21. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), (2015).

22. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9 (1998), (1998).

23. Prosecutor v. Bemba, Judgment, Trial Chamber III, ICC-01/05-01/08. 2016.

24. Prosecutor v. Ongwen, Judgment, Trial Chamber IX, ICC-02/04-01/15. 2021.

25. Iacopino V. Istanbul Protocol: Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: United Nations; 2020.

26. O'Donnell D. Torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the context of armed conflict. International Review of the Red Cross. 2007;89(867):635-53.

27. Ribitsch v. Austria, Judgment, Series A no. 336. 1995.

28. Melzer N. Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. United Nations General Assembly, 2020.

29. Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones JRWD. Cassese's International Criminal Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.

30. International Committee of the Red Cross. Commentary on the Third Geneva Convention: Article 172020.

31. Meron T. War Crimes Law Comes of Age: Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1998.

Downloads

Published

2025-12-10

Submitted

2025-08-20

Revised

2025-11-11

Accepted

2025-11-18

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Bahman , M. ., Jazayeri, S. A., & Sadeghi Dehsahraei, M. . (2025). The Status of White Torture in International Criminal Law: A Comparative Analysis of the Rome Statute and the Convention against Torture. Journal of Historical Research, Law and Policy, 1-14. https://jhrlp.com/index.php/jhrlp/article/view/194

Similar Articles

61-70 of 108

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.