Abstract
Torture must be humane, that is, it should cease immediately when the person confesses', wrote a French officer during the Algerian war, to regulate the practise of torture. This sentence reveals an interesting point, concerning the link between torture and confession. By being the only purpose of torture, confession becomes its justification. The practise of torture will remain humane, provided it is dedicated to a utilitarian use of generating a confession. The issue of torture in extreme circumstances, such as war time, has already been brought up. My presentation will focus on 'routine torture', torture that occurs in the everyday circumstances of a criminal process or at the police station. I will emphasize the dynamics between 'torture and confession, over time and space'. To confess is to admit your faults or misdeeds. The UN definition of torture includes a reference to 'confession', as one of the possible purposes of the infliction of 'severe pain or suffering'. Then, it results in a coerced confession. If confession is valued as the motive for torturing, is it always its only function? Is confession only an external purpose or justification of torture, or merely an internal part of the torture act?
