The facts: Manuela was Tortured by El Salvador
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2025 5:07 am
On 26 February 2008, Manuela, a woman with limited economic resources, experienced an obstetric emergency due to severe preeclampsia. Physicians did not promptly treat her condition. Instead, on suspicion of having had an abortion, they reported her to the prosecution service. On February 28, 2008, while receiving medical care, Manuela was detained by the police. She was handcuffed to the hospital bed and interrogated without the presence of a lawyer. Based on this declaration and subsequent proof, Manuela was prosecuted for aggravated homicide and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Two years later, while in custody, she died of cancer after receiving inadequate medical treatment.
During the proceedings, Manuela’s representatives specifically argued that Manuela was handcuffed to the hospital bed after her obstetric emergency and also during her convalescence (par. 176). The plaintiffs held that such handcuffing reached the degree of torture “since it was intentional, motivated by gender, had the purpose of perpetuating the discriminatory stigma against people accused of abortion or homicide, and reflected the maximum degree of severity”. These allegations were supported by the testimony of Manuela’s father, who witnessed the torture inflicted upon his daughter.
The IACtHR concluded that handcuffing Manuela to the hospital bed after the obstetric emergency “amounted to a violation of the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment established in Article 5(2) of the ACHR” (par. 200). The Court found it unreasonable to assume that there was a real risk of flight, and relied on the European Court’s (ECtHR) caselaw, the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the Bangkok Rules, and statements by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture. This was the Court’s first recognition of a state’s accountability for instances of torture in reproductive healthcare settings.
Nonetheless, the Court held there was insufficient evidence substantiating the 99 acres database allegation that Manuela was handcuffed and tortured while she was in a terminal state and receiving palliative care (par. 231).
Inconsistent Legal Reasoning in Torture and Gender-Based Violence Cases
Pursuant to the definition of Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, the IACtHR has established that an act constitutes torture under Article 5(2) of the ACHR if it: i) is intentional; ii) causes severe physical or mental suffering; and iii) is committed with a given purpose. The Bueno Alves v. Argentina judgment first listed these elements. Following this legal reasoning, the IACtHR has recognized that gender-based violence, particularly sexual violence, can constitute torture in cases such as Women victims of sexual torture in Atenco v. Mexico, López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia, and Valencia Campos et al. v. Bolivia.
In examining the elements of torture in gender-based violence cases, the Court has consistently evaluated the victim’s severe suffering and the aggressor’s discriminatory purpose. The IACtHR has asserted that such violence is committed with the aim to intimidate, subjugate, degrade, humiliate, punish, control, or assert power and patriarchal domination, thereby demonstrating a discriminatory purpose. In this context, the Court has underscored the vital role that discrimination plays in examining violations of women’s human rights and its relationship with torture and ill-treatment from a gender perspective. Moreover, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has stated that if an act can be shown to be gender-specific, the intent can be implied as such as well.
During the proceedings, Manuela’s representatives specifically argued that Manuela was handcuffed to the hospital bed after her obstetric emergency and also during her convalescence (par. 176). The plaintiffs held that such handcuffing reached the degree of torture “since it was intentional, motivated by gender, had the purpose of perpetuating the discriminatory stigma against people accused of abortion or homicide, and reflected the maximum degree of severity”. These allegations were supported by the testimony of Manuela’s father, who witnessed the torture inflicted upon his daughter.
The IACtHR concluded that handcuffing Manuela to the hospital bed after the obstetric emergency “amounted to a violation of the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment established in Article 5(2) of the ACHR” (par. 200). The Court found it unreasonable to assume that there was a real risk of flight, and relied on the European Court’s (ECtHR) caselaw, the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the Bangkok Rules, and statements by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture. This was the Court’s first recognition of a state’s accountability for instances of torture in reproductive healthcare settings.
Nonetheless, the Court held there was insufficient evidence substantiating the 99 acres database allegation that Manuela was handcuffed and tortured while she was in a terminal state and receiving palliative care (par. 231).
Inconsistent Legal Reasoning in Torture and Gender-Based Violence Cases
Pursuant to the definition of Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, the IACtHR has established that an act constitutes torture under Article 5(2) of the ACHR if it: i) is intentional; ii) causes severe physical or mental suffering; and iii) is committed with a given purpose. The Bueno Alves v. Argentina judgment first listed these elements. Following this legal reasoning, the IACtHR has recognized that gender-based violence, particularly sexual violence, can constitute torture in cases such as Women victims of sexual torture in Atenco v. Mexico, López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia, and Valencia Campos et al. v. Bolivia.
In examining the elements of torture in gender-based violence cases, the Court has consistently evaluated the victim’s severe suffering and the aggressor’s discriminatory purpose. The IACtHR has asserted that such violence is committed with the aim to intimidate, subjugate, degrade, humiliate, punish, control, or assert power and patriarchal domination, thereby demonstrating a discriminatory purpose. In this context, the Court has underscored the vital role that discrimination plays in examining violations of women’s human rights and its relationship with torture and ill-treatment from a gender perspective. Moreover, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has stated that if an act can be shown to be gender-specific, the intent can be implied as such as well.