A/75/179 insurgent forces implicated in such abuse, 30 but also the irregular rendition of detainees to other countries for purposes of coercive interrogation 31 and migration policies by which destination countries collude with the “pullback operations” of unsafe countries, thus deliberately preventing the arrival of migrants in their own jurisdiction and knowingly exposing them to torture, rape and murder (see A/HRC/37/50, paras. 54–57). D. Denial of wrongfulness 51. Where responsibility for acts of torture or ill-treatment cannot be denied, the resulting moral dilemma tends to be suppressed through denial of w rongfulness. Most commonly, this involves claims that the conduct in question does not meet the definition of torture or ill-treatment in the first place (trivialization) or that it is exceptionally justified based on utilitarian considerations (necessary evil) or discrimination (group-based exclusion). 1. Trivialization 52. Moral disengagement through trivialization begins with the use of euphemistic language aimed at “sanitizing” torture and ill-treatment and creating a perception of acceptability. 32 Thus, measures involving torture or ill-treatment have been euphemistically described as, inter alia, “enhanced interrogation”, 33 “deep interrogation”, 34 “moderate physical pressure”, 35 “pressure techniques”, 36 “special measures”, 37 “human resource exploitation”, 38 “vocational training”, 39 “conversion therapy”, 40 “deterrence” 41 and “special administrative measures”. 42 53. Trivialization also manifests in efforts to exclude certain practices from the legal definition of torture and ill-treatment, most commonly through objectively unsustainable assertions that the resulting pain or suffering, although intentionally __________________ 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 16/25 See, for example, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14, para. 110; International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Judgment, 15 July 1999, para. 117; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 , p. 43, para. 430. Sam Raphael, Crofton Black and Ruth Blakely, CIA Torture Unredacted (The Rendition Project and The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, July 2019). Kimberly Rios and Dominik Mischkowski, “Shaping responses to torture: what you call i t matters”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 45, No. 6 (June 2019), pp. 934–946; James Waller, Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing (Oxford University Press, 2002). See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Torture is torture, and waterboarding is not an exception – UN expert urges the US not to reinstate it”, 30 January 2017. European Court of Human Rights, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Case No. 5310/71, Judgment, 18 January 1978. Committee against Torture, concluding observations on Israel of 12 June 1994 ( A/49/44, paras. 159–171). Communication AL ISR 7/2018 of 31 January 2018. Human Rights Watch, “‘Special measures’: detention and torture in the Chinese Communist Party’s Shuanggui system”, 6 December 2016. United States of America, Central Intelligence Agency, Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual (1983). CAT/C/CHN/CO/5, para. 42; Communications: OL/CHN18/2019 of 1 November 2019; OL/CHN15/2018 of 24 August 2018. A/74/148, para. 48–50. A/HRC/37/50, para. 7, 19, 28 and 34. A/HRC/22/53/Add.4, para. 179. 20-09728