Chilean Human Rights Violations Had An Undoubted International Significance

The massive over-use of pre-trial detention around the world and its excessively prolonged duration represent an alarming but still overlooked human rights abuse undermining the right to presumption of innocence, the right to liberty and security and the right to fair trial and fostering further violations. The need for addressing such a practice should include a specific attention to corruption and poor rates of integrity within the institutional sectors playing a relevant role in the pre-trial stage, namely the law enforcement forces and the judiciary.

In this essay, female oppression in La Casa de Bernarda Alba will be discussed and analyzed. However, in order to be able to understand the importance of this theme and the impact it has had on the play, one must first understand the role of female oppression in the Spanish society in the 1930s.

Within the courtroom, it was said that “when asked to suppress a confession, he ruled that every one was voluntary.” Socially this judge knowing fully realizes that police will use ways of torture and coercion to get information from some of the defendants which is against the law. But Judge Locallo still does not dismiss this information as inadmissible, and protect the constitutional rights of these defendants. Article three of the human rights act protects us from “torture (mental or physical). This a violation not only of the law but of the human rights of some of these defendants. There would not be nearly as many confessions if these police officers did not have the defendants in the police station being screamed at and interrogated all hours of the night until they mentally crack. That is actually an example of mental torture for these people. This once again shows how socially this courtroom is run and appears to be a business. They just want cases to come in and out as fast as possible, which I believe is unjust. So with this socially the judge knows that illegal activity went on to obtain a lot of these confessions, and he acknowledged that. But he still goes on with the case and says that they are admissible. This is the social and legal working together because socially the judge accepts that this is the norm in police getting information, instead of enforcing the law and protecting the human rights of the defendants on trial, who should not have that confession used admissibly in court as evidence against

this case the u.s.) had the right to sever their ties to the ruling body

The Alien Tort Statute had been used a mere 21 times since the law was passed in 1789. The courts have upheld jurisdiction for only two of those cases. But the results of Filartiga v. Pena-Irala (1980) have changed everything. In this case the court upheld jurisdiction and finally found guilty a Paraguayan ex-police officer for torture and murder of Joelito Filartiga. Pena-Irala, the Paraguayan ex-officer, was about to be deported from the U.S. Filartiga’s family in America contacted human rights activist and lawyer Peter Weiss, requesting that he find some way to prosecute Pena-Irala before he was deported back to Paraguay where he would be safe from prosecution. Weiss had to be creative and be quick about it; only three days were left before the deportation.

Manifesto sees the decision of the supreme court as “clear abuse of judicial power” (1).

The government and its agents violated failed to safeguard the due process rights of the four prisoners in a multitude of disgusting ways. Firstly, I would argue that the use of hours upon hours of interrogation which leads to hunger and sleep deprivation is a form of torture which is illegal. I know that when I am tired and sleep deprived I start losing my ability to think clearly and once you reach a certain point, you will do anything for food or sleep. It is a natural human instinct to get desperate in a time like that. Secondly, the police were coercing the men into their confessions; they were practically holding their hands for it. The police showed the men photographs of the crime scenes so that they would know the details of it and they even helped them craft their confession and tell them what to add and remove. They did not begin recording until they were satisfied with their responses so the court would not be able to hear all that went on before it. Thirdly, I would consider the repeated threats of the death penalty and telling them to die would be a form of torture.

In relation to this another piece of evidence is in the article it states, “Our unjust imprisonment was the result

The case is about detention of a citizen from the United States of America unlawfully without being charged or tried. The issue in the case is whether the military officials violate the law through such conducting such a detention unless the Congress authorizes them to do so. Jose Padilla, an American, returned from Pakistan in 2002 when he was later arrested in O’Hare International Airport in Chicago (Ann, 2004). At first, he was detained as a witness during the investigation that the government conducted in the al Qaeda network. However, his detention was followed by a declaration that he was an ‘enemy combatant.’ The Defense Department of Chicago, by declaring him so implied that he could now be taken to prison without accessing an attorney or even the courts. The main reason why he was arrested was that the FBI suspected that his return to the United States of America was to continue carrying out criminal acts in the country.

This case dealt with crucial points in the political history and can be listed as follows:-

Subsequently, this ratio is of great significance as it demonstrates how legal instruments can restrict the potential for arbitrary arrest by holding government agencies accountable for their conduct. This case considers the statement by Scott LG in Dumbell v Roberts &

In this paper we will be giving a small overview and some insight on our presentation which is on criminal trials, appeals, post-conviction remedies, and habeas corpus. The paper will also contain a few key points. In this chapter we learned about the “judicial process used during criminal trials, appeals, post-conviction proceedings,” including habeas corpus (Fredico, Fradella, & Totten, 2013). At first glance it may look like criminal trials and appeals are the most important part of the judicial proceedings, but criminal trials and appeals are mainly based upon the investigation of the police. A defendant can be guilty, but if the police don’t do a good job of collecting evidence and investigating, then the defendant can win and

frequently seen as above international law. No US or UK politicians have yet been trialled in

This paper is going to describe the road from arrest to Supreme Court, and the two ways a

Surratt v A.G of Trinidad and Tobago - “To the extent that the answer to the present problem is doubtful, weight should be given to the judgment of Trinidad and Tobago courts. A judge sitting in a local constitutional environment, in which he has grown up and with which he is familiar, is likely to have a surer sense of what falls within the purview of the constitution and what falls beyond, than a court sitting many miles away…”