Professor Natasa Mavronicola discusses the decision by UN Torture Committee in Coppin v Ireland.
‘it is the position of the State Party that, the acts complained of have neither the required level of intensity or cruelty nor the impermissible purpose to permit them to be defined as torture. Further, the acts complained of do not meet the standard so as to fall within the definition of cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment…’
The above statement is taken from the submissions of the Government of Ireland (on file with author) on the Merits of the Communication to the Committee Against Torture (CAT) made by Elizabeth Coppin, who had brought a complaint to the Committee regarding the abuse to which she had been subjected while being held at three Magdalene Laundries in Ireland between 1964 and 1968, when aged between 14 and 18 years of age—and Ireland’s continuing obligations regarding that abuse. Read the full article...
Professor of Human Rights Law
Academic profile of Natasa Mavronicola, Professor of Human Rights Law at Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, UK.
