Around the world many survivors of so-called ‘historical’ abuses persist in seeking truth and justice decades after rights violations have been perpetrated. Recognising that prolonged impunity may cause victims’ suffering to intensify over time, the United Nations Committee Against Torture stated in its General Comment No. 3 that victims of torture or ill-treatment must be enabled to access comprehensive redress regardless of when the violation occurred. However, it seems far from settled in international human rights law that there is a substantive right to redress for torture or ill-treatment regardless of when in the past the violation occurred. In cases before several international human rights treaty bodies (and domestic courts), claims concerning ‘historical’ rights violations have been rejected on the basis that the adjudicating body does not have temporal jurisdiction or, if temporal jurisdiction is not in issue, because the claimant is guilty of ‘delay’. This article proposes that a focus on the dignity of survivors could enable the international human rights treaty bodies and other actors to recognise the existence of a ‘continuing situation’ of torture or ill-treatment where impunity for the initial substantive violation is prolonged. Such an understanding could provide the doctrinal basis for recognising a substantive right to redress for torture or ill-treatment even where the initial torture or ill-treatment occurred prior to the coming into force of the relevant treaty obligation, and indefinitely. The article illustrates its arguments using the case study of impunity for the systematic abuse of girls and women in Ireland’s Magdalene Laundries.

中文翻译：

---

长期有罪不罚是酷刑或虐待的持续情况？将尊严镜头应用于所谓的“历史”案例

在世界各地，许多所谓的“历史性”虐待的幸存者在侵犯人权行为发生数十年后仍坚持寻求真相和正义。认识到长期有罪不罚可能会导致受害者的痛苦随着时间的推移而加剧，联合国禁止酷刑委员会在其第 3 号一般性意见中指出，必须使酷刑或虐待的受害者能够获得全面的补救，无论侵权行为何时发生。然而，国际人权法似乎远未确定，无论过去何时发生侵犯行为，都存在对酷刑或虐待进行补救的实质性权利。在若干国际人权条约机构（和国内法院）审理的案件中，关于“历史性”侵犯权利的索赔被驳回，理由是裁决机构没有时间管辖权，或者如果时间管辖权不存在问题，则因为索赔人犯有“拖延”罪。本文建议关注幸存者的尊严可使国际人权条约机构和其他行为者认识到酷刑或虐待的“持续情况”的存在，在这种情况下，对最初的实质性侵犯行为的有罪不罚得以延长。即使最初的酷刑或虐待发生在相关条约义务生效之前，而且是无限期的，这种理解可以为承认对酷刑或虐待进行补救的实质性权利提供理论基础。