Excuses for torture cannot be tolerated

For those working in human rights, the events of the past week have led to some interesting, but challenging, debates. We have heard government officials and pundits argue that torture led to the discovery of Osama bin Laden. Somewhere, they claim, in an interrogation room in Guantanamo Bay or Bagram, someone gave the critical clue that led to this outcome.

These justifications for the legitimacy of torture have been hitting the headlines at a poignant moment for Amnesty International as we release our annual report today into the state of the world's human rights, in which we reaffirm the centrality of human rights as one of the key challenges that we face - including the absolute ban on torture.

Some claim that torture works. They argue that last week's events in Pakistan prove that torture played a role in bringing what they would call justice to the thousands of victims of al-Qaeda around the world. So how, they ask, can self-righteous human rights activists criticise torture?

But let us look at detention centres - detention centres in Tunis, Cairo, Tehran, Damascus, Manama and Sanaa, where for decades people fighting to promote democracy have been tortured by what are now being publicly acknowledged as brutal and repressive governments. And the justification is always virtually the same: these people are terrorists.

The reality is that, to achieve their ends, states often torture human rights defenders and end up protecting the terrorists. This is one clear reason why torture can never be justified.

States' explicit and visible commitment to human rights is key to preventing attacks on those who are marginalised. And that can only happen if torture and ill-treatment are absolutely prohibited. There can be no exceptions.

There is no question that those who threaten, kill, kidnap or maim must be brought to justice. But the rule against torture should apply equally to everyone.