Documents
United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Letter on Chelsea Manning
Jan. 2, 2020
PALAIS DES NATIONS • 1211 GENEVA 10, SWITZERLAND
Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment
REFERENCE:
AL USA 22/2019
1 November 2019
Excellency,
I have the honour to address you in my capacity as Special Rapporteur on torture
and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, pursuant to Human
Rights Council resolution 34/19.
In this connection, I would like to bring to the attention of your Excellency’s
Government information I have received regarding the use of civil contempt sanctions to
detain and fine, Ms. Chelsea Manning, allegedly to coerce compliance with grand jury
procedures. She is currently detained in William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in
Alexandria, Virginia.
Ms. Manning was the subject of an urgent appeal sent by my predecessor on 30
December 2010 (UA 20/2010), with regard to allegations of prolonged solitary
confinement during her pre-trial detention, reportedly imposed in an effort to coerce her
to testify against her will. In follow-up to the reply by your Excellency’s Government to
that letter, and after holding several discussions with the then Legal Advisor of the
Government and key officials from the Departments of Defence and State, a further letter
was sent to the Government on 16 June 2011 (AL 8/2011). The letter expressed concern
over the refusal by the relevant authorities to allow private, unmonitored and privileged
communications in accordance with the terms of reference and working methods of the
mandate. Furthermore, concern over restrictive conditions for prisons visits and for
interviews with inmates was the subject of a press statement by the mandate holder on 12
July 2011. Convicted and sentenced to 35 years of imprisonment in 2013, Ms. Manning’s
sentence was commuted to 7 years of total confinement in January 2017.
While I welcome Ms. Manning’s subsequent release in May 2017, I am deeply
concerned at the new allegations outlined below.
According to the information received:
In March 2019, Ms. Manning was summoned to appear and give testimony before
a federal grand jury convened in the Eastern District of Virginia. The grand jury
was reportedly assembled for the purpose of investigating numerous reporters,
national security journalists, domestic and international publishers and freedom of
information activists.
Ms. Manning objected to the subpoena and raised a number of legal challenges to
its legitimacy. On 8 and 16 May 2019, having unsuccessfully requested the
subpoena to be withdrawn or quashed, she was found to be in civil contempt of
PALAIS DES NATIONS • 1211 GENEVA 10, SWITZERLAND
Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment
REFERENCE:
AL USA 22/2019
1 November 2019
Excellency,
I have the honour to address you in my capacity as Special Rapporteur on torture
and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, pursuant to Human
Rights Council resolution 34/19.
In this connection, I would like to bring to the attention of your Excellency’s
Government information I have received regarding the use of civil contempt sanctions to
detain and fine, Ms. Chelsea Manning, allegedly to coerce compliance with grand jury
procedures. She is currently detained in William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in
Alexandria, Virginia.
Ms. Manning was the subject of an urgent appeal sent by my predecessor on 30
December 2010 (UA 20/2010), with regard to allegations of prolonged solitary
confinement during her pre-trial detention, reportedly imposed in an effort to coerce her
to testify against her will. In follow-up to the reply by your Excellency’s Government to
that letter, and after holding several discussions with the then Legal Advisor of the
Government and key officials from the Departments of Defence and State, a further letter
was sent to the Government on 16 June 2011 (AL 8/2011). The letter expressed concern
over the refusal by the relevant authorities to allow private, unmonitored and privileged
communications in accordance with the terms of reference and working methods of the
mandate. Furthermore, concern over restrictive conditions for prisons visits and for
interviews with inmates was the subject of a press statement by the mandate holder on 12
July 2011. Convicted and sentenced to 35 years of imprisonment in 2013, Ms. Manning’s
sentence was commuted to 7 years of total confinement in January 2017.
While I welcome Ms. Manning’s subsequent release in May 2017, I am deeply
concerned at the new allegations outlined below.
According to the information received:
In March 2019, Ms. Manning was summoned to appear and give testimony before
a federal grand jury convened in the Eastern District of Virginia. The grand jury
was reportedly assembled for the purpose of investigating numerous reporters,
national security journalists, domestic and international publishers and freedom of
information activists.
Ms. Manning objected to the subpoena and raised a number of legal challenges to
its legitimacy. On 8 and 16 May 2019, having unsuccessfully requested the
subpoena to be withdrawn or quashed, she was found to be in civil contempt of
the court’s order to appear before the grand jury. Since then, Ms. Manning has
been confined at William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in Alexandria,
Virginia, with the aim of coercing her to testify. In addition, she has been subject
to a daily fine, for the first thirty days at a rate of USD 500 and thereafter at the
rate of USD 1000 for each day she refuses to give testimony. The duration of such
coercive detention is reportedly limited to the duration of the grand jury, namely
18 months, but could be perpetuated indefinitely with the subsequent
establishment of successive grand juries.
While I do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, I express
serious concern at the reported use of coercive measures against Ms. Manning,
particularly given the history of her previous conviction and ill-treatment in detention. It
is my understanding that the practise of coercive deprivation of liberty for civil contempt
under the Recalcitrant Witness Statute, 28 U.S.C § 1826, involves the intentional
infliction of progressively severe mental and emotional suffering for the purposes of
coercion and intimidation at the order of judicial authorities. Indeed, victims of prolonged
coercive confinement have demonstrated post-traumatic symptoms and other severe and
persistent mental and physical health consequences.
Based on these elements I conclude that such deprivation of liberty does not
constitute a circumscribed sanction for a specific offence, but an open-ended,
progressively severe measure of coercion fulfilling all the constitutive elements of torture
or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In my view, such
measures do not fall under the “lawful sanctions” exception of Article 1 CAT, but are
contrary to the absolute, non-derogable and peremptory prohibition of torture and,
therefore, should be discontinued and abolished without delay. More specifically, the
practice of coercive detention appears to be incompatible with the international human
rights obligations of the United States under, inter alia, Articles 1, 2, 15 and 16 of the
Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (CAT), as well as under Articles 2, 7 and 9 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); ratified by the United States of America in 1994 and
1992 respectively.
I would also draw the attention of your Excellency’s Government to paragraph 8a
of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/23, which reminds States that “Intimidation and
coercion, as described in article 1 of the Convention against Torture, (…) can amount to
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or to torture.”
In connection with the above alleged facts and concerns, please refer to the Annex
on Reference to international human rights law attached to this letter which cites
international human rights instruments and standards relevant to these allegations.
As it is my responsibility, under the mandate provided to me by the Human Rights
Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention, I would be grateful for your
observations on the following matters:
2
the court’s order to appear before the grand jury. Since then, Ms. Manning has
been confined at William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in Alexandria,
Virginia, with the aim of coercing her to testify. In addition, she has been subject
to a daily fine, for the first thirty days at a rate of USD 500 and thereafter at the
rate of USD 1000 for each day she refuses to give testimony. The duration of such
coercive detention is reportedly limited to the duration of the grand jury, namely
18 months, but could be perpetuated indefinitely with the subsequent
establishment of successive grand juries.
While I do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, I express
serious concern at the reported use of coercive measures against Ms. Manning,
particularly given the history of her previous conviction and ill-treatment in detention. It
is my understanding that the practise of coercive deprivation of liberty for civil contempt
under the Recalcitrant Witness Statute, 28 U.S.C § 1826, involves the intentional
infliction of progressively severe mental and emotional suffering for the purposes of
coercion and intimidation at the order of judicial authorities. Indeed, victims of prolonged
coercive confinement have demonstrated post-traumatic symptoms and other severe and
persistent mental and physical health consequences.
Based on these elements I conclude that such deprivation of liberty does not
constitute a circumscribed sanction for a specific offence, but an open-ended,
progressively severe measure of coercion fulfilling all the constitutive elements of torture
or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In my view, such
measures do not fall under the “lawful sanctions” exception of Article 1 CAT, but are
contrary to the absolute, non-derogable and peremptory prohibition of torture and,
therefore, should be discontinued and abolished without delay. More specifically, the
practice of coercive detention appears to be incompatible with the international human
rights obligations of the United States under, inter alia, Articles 1, 2, 15 and 16 of the
Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (CAT), as well as under Articles 2, 7 and 9 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); ratified by the United States of America in 1994 and
1992 respectively.
I would also draw the attention of your Excellency’s Government to paragraph 8a
of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/23, which reminds States that “Intimidation and
coercion, as described in article 1 of the Convention against Torture, (…) can amount to
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or to torture.”
In connection with the above alleged facts and concerns, please refer to the Annex
on Reference to international human rights law attached to this letter which cites
international human rights instruments and standards relevant to these allegations.
As it is my responsibility, under the mandate provided to me by the Human Rights
Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention, I would be grateful for your
observations on the following matters:
2
1.
Please provide any additional information and/or comment(s) you may
have on the above-mentioned allegations.
2.
Please provide information concerning the factual and legal grounds for
subjecting Ms. Manning to continued deprivation of liberty and daily fines,
especially after her categorical and persistent refusal to give testimony
demonstrates the lack of their coercive effect;
3.
Please provide information on how such coercive measures, which do not
constitute circumscribed criminal sanctions, but which appear to
intentionally inflict progressively severe suffering and financial pressure
for the purpose of coercing individuals to testify against their conscience,
are compatible with the international human rights obligations of the
United States and, most notably, the absolute and non-derogable
prohibition of torture and ill-treatment as provided for, inter alia, in the
ICCPR and the CAT.
4.
Please explain what are the legal consequences when it is demonstrated
that the contemnor is not coercible and will not testify against his or her
conscience, thus defeating the purported purpose of his or her
incarceration?
5.
Please provide information on the measures taken to ensure the physical
and mental integrity of Ms. Manning, as required under ICCPR and CAT
I would welcome receiving clarification to these questions at your earliest
convenience, as the allegations described in this letter warrant urgent attention, and may
have serious adverse consequences for Ms. Manning’s rights and integrity.
This communication and any response received from your Excellency’s
Government will be made public via the communications reporting website within
60 days. They will also subsequently be made available in the usual report to be
presented to the Human Rights Council.
While awaiting a reply, I recommend that Ms. Manning’s current deprivation of
liberty be promptly reviewed in light of the United States’ international human rights
obligations. Should my assessment regarding its purely coercive purpose be accurate, I
recommend that Ms. Manning be released without further delay, and that any fines
disproportionate to the gravity of any offence she may have committed be cancelled or
reimbursed.
I intend to publicly express my concerns in the near future as, in my view, the
information upon which my concerns are based is sufficiently reliable to indicate a matter
warranting prompt attention. I also believe that the wider public should be alerted to the
potential human rights implications of these allegations. Any public expression of
3
1.
Please provide any additional information and/or comment(s) you may
have on the above-mentioned allegations.
2.
Please provide information concerning the factual and legal grounds for
subjecting Ms. Manning to continued deprivation of liberty and daily fines,
especially after her categorical and persistent refusal to give testimony
demonstrates the lack of their coercive effect;
3.
Please provide information on how such coercive measures, which do not
constitute circumscribed criminal sanctions, but which appear to
intentionally inflict progressively severe suffering and financial pressure
for the purpose of coercing individuals to testify against their conscience,
are compatible with the international human rights obligations of the
United States and, most notably, the absolute and non-derogable
prohibition of torture and ill-treatment as provided for, inter alia, in the
ICCPR and the CAT.
4.
Please explain what are the legal consequences when it is demonstrated
that the contemnor is not coercible and will not testify against his or her
conscience, thus defeating the purported purpose of his or her
incarceration?
5.
Please provide information on the measures taken to ensure the physical
and mental integrity of Ms. Manning, as required under ICCPR and CAT
I would welcome receiving clarification to these questions at your earliest
convenience, as the allegations described in this letter warrant urgent attention, and may
have serious adverse consequences for Ms. Manning’s rights and integrity.
This communication and any response received from your Excellency’s
Government will be made public via the communications reporting website within
60 days. They will also subsequently be made available in the usual report to be
presented to the Human Rights Council.
While awaiting a reply, I recommend that Ms. Manning’s current deprivation of
liberty be promptly reviewed in light of the United States’ international human rights
obligations. Should my assessment regarding its purely coercive purpose be accurate, I
recommend that Ms. Manning be released without further delay, and that any fines
disproportionate to the gravity of any offence she may have committed be cancelled or
reimbursed.
I intend to publicly express my concerns in the near future as, in my view, the
information upon which my concerns are based is sufficiently reliable to indicate a matter
warranting prompt attention. I also believe that the wider public should be alerted to the
potential human rights implications of these allegations. Any public expression of
3
concern on my part will indicate that I have been in contact with your Excellency’s
Government’s to clarify the issue/s in question.
Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Nils Melzer
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment
4
concern on my part will indicate that I have been in contact with your Excellency’s
Government’s to clarify the issue/s in question.
Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Nils Melzer
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment
4
Annex
Reference to international human rights law
In connection with above alleged facts and concerns, I would like to draw the
attention of your Excellency’s Government to the relevant international norms and
standards that are applicable to the issues brought forth by the situation described above.
In particular, I would like to remind your Excellency’s Government of
the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment as codified in articles 2 and 16 of the Convention
against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT)
which the United States of America ratified on 21 October 1994. As well as, Article 7 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States of
America became a party to on 8 June 1992, provides that “[n]o one shall be subjected to
torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
I would like to further remind your Excellency’s Government of the absolute and
non-derogable prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, as an international norm of jus cogens, and as reflected inter alia, in Human
Rights Council Resolution 25/13 and General Assembly Resolution 68/156, which
“[c]ondemns all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, including through intimidation, which are and shall remain prohibited at any
time and in any place whatsoever and can thus never be justified, and calls upon all States
to implement fully the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.
With regards to deprivation of liberty as a coercive sanction rather than as a
disciplinary sanction, I would like to highlight that it can amount to torture as defined in
Article 1 of the CAT, which states that “torture means any act by which severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such
purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing
him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or
intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination
of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the
consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity,
it does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful
sanctions”.
In this context, I would like to conclude by drawing the attention of your
Excellency’s Government to article 15 of the Convention against Torture provides that,
“Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made
as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a
person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.” I also further recall
that paragraph 7c of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/23 urges States “To ensure that
no statement established to have been made as a result of torture is invoked as evidence
in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the
5
Annex
Reference to international human rights law
In connection with above alleged facts and concerns, I would like to draw the
attention of your Excellency’s Government to the relevant international norms and
standards that are applicable to the issues brought forth by the situation described above.
In particular, I would like to remind your Excellency’s Government of
the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment as codified in articles 2 and 16 of the Convention
against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT)
which the United States of America ratified on 21 October 1994. As well as, Article 7 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States of
America became a party to on 8 June 1992, provides that “[n]o one shall be subjected to
torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
I would like to further remind your Excellency’s Government of the absolute and
non-derogable prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, as an international norm of jus cogens, and as reflected inter alia, in Human
Rights Council Resolution 25/13 and General Assembly Resolution 68/156, which
“[c]ondemns all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, including through intimidation, which are and shall remain prohibited at any
time and in any place whatsoever and can thus never be justified, and calls upon all States
to implement fully the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.
With regards to deprivation of liberty as a coercive sanction rather than as a
disciplinary sanction, I would like to highlight that it can amount to torture as defined in
Article 1 of the CAT, which states that “torture means any act by which severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such
purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing
him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or
intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination
of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the
consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity,
it does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful
sanctions”.
In this context, I would like to conclude by drawing the attention of your
Excellency’s Government to article 15 of the Convention against Torture provides that,
“Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made
as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a
person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.” I also further recall
that paragraph 7c of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/23 urges States “To ensure that
no statement established to have been made as a result of torture is invoked as evidence
in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the
5
statement was made, and calls upon States to consider extending that prohibition to
statements made as a result of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
recognizing that adequate corroboration of statements, including confessions, used as
evidence in any proceedings constitutes one safeguard for the prevention of torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
6
statement was made, and calls upon States to consider extending that prohibition to
statements made as a result of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
recognizing that adequate corroboration of statements, including confessions, used as
evidence in any proceedings constitutes one safeguard for the prevention of torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
6