E/CN.4/1992/17 page 102 violently attacked and killed members of the military and even their relatives. Since "the opponent" was usually well-trained in withstanding normal interrogation techniques, the only way to extract information vital for the protection of the lives of one's own group was torture. The rationalization and the justification for the use of torture are implicitly given: "it is either them or us". But this also explains the hideous vicious circle to which torture leads. Since in a situation of civil war or civil strife the opponent is not readily recognizable, everyone who does not clearly belong to "us", may be one of "them". Consequently, every innocent citizen or bystander is exposed to the risk of torture, in particular those who give voice to their criticism of the incumbent regime or take up the cause of those whose human rights are violated. Human rights activists and human rights lawyers are seen as part of "them" since they are not part of "us". Once the use of torture is rationalized and found justifiable in specific cases, it becomes justifiable in other cases as well. The circle of potential victims of torture gradually becomes wider and wider and torture becomes a habit. And because of its intimate character, the chances that perpetrators of torture will be held responsible for acts of torture are relatively small, even if the authorities are willing to prosecute them. 279. In its resolution 1991/29 the Commission on Human Rights reiterated its deep concern at the adverse effect on the enjoyment of human rights of persistent acts of violence committed in many countries by armed groups, regardless of their origin, that spread terror among the population, and by drug traffickers. It is indeed a matter of deep concern that human rights are thus violated in the most ruthless way, often by groups which claim they fight for a better society which is more in conformity with the requisites of justice. Their acts are in the starkest contrast possible to their claims and such acts should be condemned unequivocally and without reservation. Such acts, however, can never serve as an excuse for similar acts on the part of the authorities. All international instruments explicitly state that there is no justification whatsoever for torture; not even under a state of emergency may the prohibition of torture be suspended. There is a very sound reason for this unreserved prohibition: national security can never be an aim in itself but has to be achieved for the well-being of the people; national security which is achieved at the expense of respect for human rights would turn into a caricature of itself. 280. Under circumstances in which torture is practiced or condoned by the authorities, it is the judiciary which forms the last bastion for the protection of the citizen's basic rights. Nevertheless, it is tragic to note that in many cases the judiciary does not seem to be aware of the role it can play in upholding the rule of law. From many country reports it is evident that judicial bodies often believe that their impartiality forbids them from taking a stand whenever there is a deep rift between the authorities and part of their subjects who no longer feel protected, but rather threatened by these authorities. The judiciary, however, should bear in mind that, as stated in Principle 6 of the Basic Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders and endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolutions 40/32 and 40/146, "the principle of the independence of the judiciary entitles and requires the judiciary to ensure that judicial proceedings are conducted fairly and that the rights of the parties are