A/HRC/43/49 coercion, intimidation, punishment, humiliation or discrimination without causing readily identifiable physical harm or traces (A/73/207, para. 45).1 12. In continuation of experiments conducted by the Nazi regime on concentration camp inmates during the Second World War,2 the cold war era saw the emergence of classified large-scale and long-term projects involving systematic “mind control” experimentation with thousands of prisoners, psychiatric patients and volunteers unaware of the true nature and purpose of these trials and the grave health risks generated by them. 3 These experiments resulted in the adoption and international proliferation of interrogation methodologies which – despite their euphemistic description as “enhanced”, “deep”, “nonstandard” or “special” interrogation, “moderate physical pressure”, “conditioning techniques”, “human resource exploitation”, and even “clean” or “white” torture – were clearly incompatible with both medical ethics and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 4 While some of these methods involved significant physical violence, others were of a specifically psychological nature. In the recent past, some of these approaches have resurfaced most prominently in connection with interrogational torture in the context of counter-terrorism,5 “deterrence”-based detention of “irregular migrants” (see A/HRC/37/50), alleged mass internment for purposes of political “re-education”,6 and the abuse of individual prisoners of conscience.7 New and emerging technologies also give rise to unprecedented tools and environments of non-physical interaction which must be duly considered in the contemporary interpretation of the prohibition of torture. 13. Mandate holders have long recognized “psychological” or “mental” torture as an analytical concept distinct from physical torture (see E/CN.4/1986/15), have addressed specific methods or contexts of psychological torture, 8 and have pointed to specific challenges arising in connection with the investigation and redress of this type of abuse (A/HRC/13/39/Add.5, para. 55), as well as to the inextricable link between psychological torture and coercive interrogation (A/71/298, paras. 37–45). They have also dedicated a full thematic report to the practice of solitary confinement (A/66/268), advocated the development of guidelines for non-coercive interviewing (see A/71/298), supported the recent update of the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 Linda Piwowarczyk, Alejandro Moreno and Michael Grodin, “Health care of torture survivors”, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), vol. 284, No. 5 (2 August 2000). Jonathan D. Moreno, “Acid brothers: Henry Beecher, Timothy Leary, and the psychedelic of the century”, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, vol. 59, No. 1 (Winter 2016), pp. 108–109. Most notably, “Project MKUltra, the CIA’s Programme of Research in Behavioural Modification” (1953–1973). United States of America, Central Intelligence Agency, KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation (1963), sect. IX; United States, Central Intelligence Agency; Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual (1983); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, “Deep interrogation (five techniques)”, litigated at the European Court of Human Rights, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 5310/71, Judgment, 18 January 1978; President of France, Emmanuel Macron, statement on the death of Maurice Audin, 13 September 2018, recognizing that successive French Governments had operated a system of political torture and disappearances in Algeria; Lawrence E. Hinkle, Jr. and Harold G. Wolff, “Communist interrogation and indoctrination of ‘enemies of the state’: analysis of methods used by the communist state police – a special report”, American Medical Association Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, vol. 76, No. 2 (August 1956); and Scott Shane, “U.S. interrogators were taught Chinese coercion techniques”, New York Times, 2 July 2008. United States, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program (2014). CAT/C/CHN/CO/5, para. 42; as well as two communications co-signed by the Special Rapporteur, communications Nos. OL/CHN18/2019, 1 November 2019, and OL/CHN15/2018, 24 August 2018. See also “China cables”, available at www.icij.org/investigations/china-cables/read-the-china-cablesdocuments/. See, most prominently, the communications sent by the Special Rapporteur and his predecessor in the cases of Bradley/Chelsea Manning, communications Nos. UA G/SO 214 (53-24) USA 8/2011, 15 June 2011; and No. AL USA 22/2019, 1 November 2019); and Julian Assange, communications No. UA/GBR/3/2019, 27 May 2019; and No. UA GBR 6/2019, 29 October 2019). See, for example, A/74/148, paras. 32–34; A/59/324, para. 17; and E/CN.4/2006/120, para. 52.