A/75/179 A. Distinguishing moral disengagement from legal justification 26. From a psychological perspective, the function of moral disengagement is to leave the moral condemnation of torture and ill-treatment formally intact while at the same time creating “blind spots” where such abuse can be practised without blame. Moral disengagement always involves the self-deceptive denial of reality, which enables perpetrators and bystanders to engage in, participate in or acquiesce to morally wrongful conduct while at the same time denying either its occurrence (denial of fact), its wrongfulness (denial of wrongfulness) or personal or collective responsibility for its occurrence (denial of responsibility). 27. From a legal perspective, the same strategies of denial of fact, wrongfulness and responsibility may also aim to avoid legal accountability. By definitio n, however, moral disengagement is not a valid legal defence, but a psychological strategy of self deception. Thus, while narratives of moral disengagement can never justify torture and ill-treatment as a matter of law, they can – and routinely do – severely affect the psychological capability and willingness of judges, officials and observers to correctly perceive and effectively act upon allegations of torture and ill -treatment, to the point of ensuring widespread complacency for such abuse. Depending on the circumstances, different strategies of denial can overlap or can be applied cumulatively or consecutively, both on an individual and on a collective scale. B. Denial of fact 28. The most rudimentary manner of avoiding or suppressing moral dilemmas resulting from self-interested decision-making is denial of fact. Importantly, when used as a method of moral disengagement, the primary purpose of denial of fact is not the deception of others, but self-deception through wilful ignorance. It is not a conscious defence mounted by perpetrators to cover up their crimes, but an unconscious defence mechanism of institutional or public bystanders to suppress feelings of guilt and shame. Time and again, officials and private individuals flatly deny and ignore the occurrence of wrongful conduct, simply to avoid the distress of having to acknowledge the truth and, potentially, give up the comfort, certainty and security of passive conformity and complacency. Psychologically, wilful ignorance is motivated primarily by the basic drives of self-affirmation (against guilt and shame) and self-preservation (against a system threat). 15 29. Best summarized in the slogan, “what must not be, cannot be”, denial of fact is a very common reaction of officials, journalists and citizens confronted with unexpected or unwelcome allegations of serious systemic misconduct. The psychological function of wilful ignorance is to avoid, through self -deception, a disillusionment that cannot be mentally or emotionally processed or coped with. In order to preserve a false sense of reality, powerful mental blind spots are unconsciously created, which enables the conscious mind to “pseudo -rationally” dismiss even compelling evidence for serious misconduct as mere “conspiracy __________________ 15 10/25 Stanley Cohen, States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering (Cambridge, Polity Press, 2001); Ronald Crelinsten, “World of torture: a constructed reality”, Theoretical Criminology, vol. 7, No. 3 (August 2003), pp. 293–318. 20-09728