💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: Governance, Transparency & Accountability, Citizens Charters

  • Government e-Marketplace (GeM) System

    The Government e-Marketplace (GeM) system has resulted in a 10% savings in public procurement costs in five years.

    Government e-Marketplace

    • GeM is an online platform for public procurement in India by various Government Departments / Organizations / PSUs.
    • The initiative was launched on August 9, 2016 by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry with the objective to create an open and transparent procurement platform for government buyers.
    • It is owned by GeM SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) which is a 100 per cent Government-owned, non-profit company under the Ministry of Commerce and Industries
    • GeM aims to enhance transparency, efficiency and speed in public procurement.
    • It provides the tools of e-bidding, reverse e-auction and demand aggregation to facilitate the government users achieve the best value for their money.
    • The purchases through GeM by Government users have been authorized and made mandatory by Ministry of Finance.

    Note: The government has made it mandatory for sellers on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal to clarify the country of origin of their goods when registering new products.

    Advantages for Buyers

    • Offers rich listing of products for individual categories of Goods/Services
    • Makes available search, compare, select and buy facility
    • Enables buying Goods and Services online, as and when required.
    • Provides transparency and ease of buying
    • Ensures continuous vendor rating system
    • Up-to-date user-friendly dashboard for buying, monitoring supplies and payments
    • Provision of easy return policy

    Advantages for Sellers

    • Direct access to all Government departments.
    • One-stop shop for marketing with minimal efforts
    • One-stop shop for bids / reverse auction on products / services
    • New Product Suggestion facility available to Sellers
    • Dynamic pricing: Price can be changed based on market conditions
    • Seller friendly dashboard for selling, and monitoring of supplies and payments
    • Consistent and uniform purchase procedures

  • Resolving the Assam-Mizoram issue

    Context

    The violent stand-off between the Assam and Mizoram armed policemen at Vairengte in Mizoram, on July 26, took six lives and left over 50 injured is the culmination of a long-standing border dispute.

    History of the boundary issue

    • The ‘inner line’ boundary of the Lushai hills was ‘fixed’ in 1875 on the southern border of Assam’s Cachar district.
    • In line with the colonial practice of ‘fixing’ borders, this boundary was however not ‘precise’ as it was drawn largely using natural markers such as rivers and hills.
    • In post-independent India, the Mizoram government has accepted this boundary in preference over the subsequent revisions made by the colonial government.
    • There was a change in boundary when the Inner Line Permit under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 was extended to the Lushai hills district in 1930 and 1933.
    • The Mizoram government perceives that the boundary instituted by these revisions amounted to unilateral superimposition.
    • These revisions are also seen to conspicuously fail to recognise the Mizo’s long-standing historical rights to use the un-demarcated southern border of Cachar as their hunting ground, for jhum cultivation, and as sites of their resource extraction including rubber and timber.
    • However, considering that borders cannot be driven by perception but by institutionalised rules and laws, Assam’s government continues to refuse to accept Mizoram’s standpoint.
    • The Assam government considers Mizo plantation and settlements in the Inner Line Reserve Forest areas as an ‘encroachment’.

    People-centric Vs. State-centric approach in dispute

    • At the heart of this dispute is the contending approaches of the Assam and Mizoram governments to ‘borders’, namely ‘state-centric and ‘people-centric approaches.
    • The Assam government represent a continuum of the colonial ‘state-centric’ approach to borders which gives premium to legal, juridical and administrative recognition and protection of the border.
    • The Mizoram government advocate a ‘people-centric approach seeks to give a premium to the historical and traditional rights of the local indigenous people.
    • The Mizoram government also advocate the principle of uti possidetis juris (‘as you possess under law’, including customary law) on the other hand.

    Way forward

    • Historical context: Fixing the Assam-Mizoram border and resolve the dispute need to be sensitive to the historical context.
    • Deep historical knowledge, sensitivity and an accommodative spirit need to inform dialogue and negotiation under the neutral supervision of the Centre.
    • Inter-governmental forum: It is about time that the Centre sets up a permanent inter-governmental forum to involve important stakeholders in order to effectively manage border and territorial conflicts.
    • Quick-fix solution should be avoided: Any quick-fix solution driven by temporal electoral considerations should be avoided if we were to resuscitate and sustain interdependent Assam-Mizoram borders and beyond.

    Conclusion

    The resolution should be sensitive to the possibility of fluid and overlapping sovereignty, where forest ‘commons’ are seen not simply as sites of revenue-extraction but as powerful symbols of identity and sustainable livelihood resources for the local people.

  • State of food insecurity

    Context

    The latest edition of the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) report, released jointly by five UN organisations in July, reveals that the pandemic and failure on the part of state to combat its effects, has led to a significant increase in the prevalence of hunger and food insecurity in the country.

    About the report

    • Estimates on food insecurity presented in the SOFI report are based on two globally-accepted indicators of food insecurity:
    • 1) The Prevalence of Undernourishment (PoU), which estimates the proportion of people suffering from chronic deficiency of calories.
    • 2) A more recently developed an experience-based indicator called the Prevalence of Moderate and Severe Food Insecurity (PMSFI).
    • The PoU estimates are based on estimates of per-capita supply of food and distributional parameters estimated using the national consumption surveys
    • On the other hand, PMSFI estimates are based on data collected through surveys that attempt to capture people’s experiences of food insecurity (such as eating less, modifying diet to eat cheaper food etc).
    • No assessment of food insecurity during a pandemic: The PMSFI estimates presented in the report are particularly important because, since the outbreak of the pandemic, the Indian government has not undertaken any official assessment of food insecurity in the country.
    • Not only has the government not conducted its own consumption or food security surveys, it does not approve the publication of results based on the Gallup World Poll.
    • As a result, estimates for India are not published in the SOFI reports.
    • However, these can still be obtained indirectly because the data are presented for South Asia and for “South Asia (excluding India)”.
    • Estimates for India can be obtained by comparing the two sets of data.

    What the report says

    • According to the data presented in the report, the prevalence of moderate to severe food insecurity in India rose by about 6.8 percentage points in 2018-20.
    • Data show that there were about 43 crore of moderate to severe food-insecure people in India in 2019.
    • As a result of the pandemic-related disruptions, this increased to 52 crore in one year.
    • In terms of prevalence rates, moderate to severe food insecurity increased from about 31.6 per cent in 2019 to 38.4 per cent in 2021.

    Causes of food insecurity in India

    • Economic distress: The problems of hunger and food insecurity are grave in India because of widespread economic distress, high unemployment and high levels of inequality.
    • Dependence on informal economy: A large proportion of the poor is dependent on the informal economy in which incomes are too low and uncertain.
    • Unemployment: Unemployment rates have risen sharply over the last few years, shrinking public investment and the economic slowdown have compounded the distress among working classes and the peasantry.
    • With low and uncertain incomes, families dependent on the informal economy do not have assured access to adequate and nutritious food.

    Way forward

    • Monitoring system: There is an urgent need for the government to establish systems for regular monitoring of the food security situation in the country.
    • Universal access to food: It is ironic that the country with the largest stock of grain in the world — 120 million tonnes as of July 1, 2021 — accounts for a quarter of the world’s food-insecure population.
    • Universalising access to the public distribution system is the need of the hour at least during the pandemic.

    Conclusion

    The increasing severity of food insecurity in India points to the urgent need for measures by the government to ensure the right to food of citizens of India.

  • No fundamental right to strike

    Context

    Recently, the Minister of Defence introduced the Essential Defence Services Bill, 2021.

    About the Essential Defence Services Bill, 2021

    • The Bill seeks to provide for the maintenance of essential defence services so as “to secure the security of nation and the life and property of the public at large”.
    • Prohibit strike by ordinance factory staff: It prevents staff of the government-owned ordnance factories from going on strike.
    • Power to declare essential service: The Bill seeks to empower the government to declare services mentioned in it as “essential defence services” and prohibit strikes and lockouts in any industrial establishment or unit engaged in such services.

    No fundamental right to strike

    • There is no fundamental right to strike under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
    • Under Article 33 of the Constitution, Parliament, by law, can restrict or abrogate the rights of the members of the armed forces or the forces charged with the maintenance of public order.
    • Thus, for the armed forces and the police, where discipline is the most important prerequisite, even the fundamental right to form an association can be restricted under Article 19(4) in the interest of public order and other considerations.

    Supreme Court judgements on the issue

    • Many states prohibit strikes: This is not for the first time that strikes by government employees are being made explicitly illegal by the government, many states have similar provisions.
    • The Supreme Court in Delhi Police v. Union of India (1986) upheld the restrictions to form association by the members of the non-gazetted police force.
    • While the right to freedom of association is fundamental, recognition of such association is not a fundamental right.
    • Parliament can by law regulate the working of such associations by imposing conditions and restrictions on their functions, the court held.
    • In T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2003), the Supreme Court held that the employees have no fundamental right to resort to strike.

    Conclusion

    Strikes cannot be justified on any equitable ground. Strike as a weapon is mostly misused which results in chaos

  • 2 years of Repeal of Article 370

    Context

    Two years ago, India bid farewell to Articles 370 and 35 (A), marking the start of a new era in the politics of Jammu and Kashmir.

    Assessing the impact of changes on five parameters

    1) National unity

    • Articles 370 and 35 (A) created an unnatural and unhealthy divide in our nation.
    • For every law passed, every rule made, we had to ascertain whether it applied to J&K or not.
    • Today, such distinctions are history, J&K has been fully integrated with the other states and Union Territories.

    2) Democracy at the grass-root level

    • A healthy culture of grassroots-level participation was absent.
    • Panchayat polls held: One of the critical deliverables for J&K was to hold panchayat polls, which were finally held in 2020.
    •  This one step will go a long way in shaping the development paradigm in Jammu and Kashmir.
    • Political activity has also picked up across Jammu and Kashmir.
    • The Centre’s emphasis on a proper delimitation followed by full-fledged elections is in line with the commitments made to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

    3) Peace

    • The third parameter is that of peace.
    • The memories of 2008, 2010 and 2016 are still fresh in the minds of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
    • An effort was made to reignite such sparks of tension after the decisions on Article 370 and 35 (A) but the Valley as well as Jammu have remained peaceful.

    4) People’s aspirations

    • Jammu and Kashmir did not have RTI laws and its SC, ST and OBC communities were not able to get the benefits of reservation
    • The fact that the most marginalised groups can now get reservation benefits is a major leap forward in fulfilling the aspirations of the people of J&K.

    5) Economic growth

    • The Valley is today abuzz with news of action against corruption in key departments and financial bodies in the state.
    • Money being sent for public good was being misused by vested interest groups.
    • The economic upliftment in the Valley began with the Prime Minister’s Package of 2015.
    • This set the stage for extensive spending on physical and social infrastructure.
    • With the going of 370 and 35 (A) there is great hope that tourism will pick up in the Valley.
    • Incentives given to different sectors of the economy — be it saffron farmers or those who fish trout — combined with a largely peaceful environment is empowering many lives.
    • With corruption and leakages drastically reduced, resources are reaching the intended beneficiaries.

    Conclusion

    The situation in Jammu and Kashmir was never easy. As we enter the Amrut Mahotsav, it is for us to see the new realities in J&K. The people of the state have got the wings to fly and, in the years to come, J&K will make even greater contributions to India’s growth and development.

  • Surveillance and human rights

    Context

    The Pegasus revelations reflect an attack on Indian democracy and Indian citizens.

    Role of government in protecting the fundamental and human rights of citizens

    • The surveillance of the target group in India through Pegasus raises doubts about the functioning of democracy in India.
    • Constitutional duty of government: The government has a constitutional duty to protect the fundamental and human rights of its citizens, irrespective of who they are.
    • There is clear evidence that the rule of law has been undermined.
    • More evidently, this reflects extremely poor governance.
    • The Intelligence Bureau, the Research and Analysis Wing, and the National Security Council Secretariat should have forewarned the government and citizens against such surveillance seriously violating privacy and fundamental rights.
    • The Supreme Court, in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), declared privacy a constitutionally protected value.

    Violation of human rights

    • India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    • Article 12 provides that everyone has the right to the protection of the law against arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.
    • The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, also signed by India, in Article 17 states, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
    • In K.S. Puttaswamy, the Supreme Court noted India’s commitments under international law and held that by virtue of Article 51 of the Constitution, India has to endeavour to “foster respect for international law and treaty obligations…”
    • The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is a fallout of this commitment.

    Recommendations on digital communication technologies

    • The annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) in 2014 made recommendations on “digital communications technologies”.
    • Judicial oversight: The UNHCHR report stated, judicial involvement that meets international standards can help to make it more likely that the overall statutory regime will meet the minimum standards that international human rights law requires.
    • At the same time, the report stated that judicial involvement in oversight should not be viewed as a panacea.
    • Independent body: The report also recommended an independent oversight body to keep checks.
    • Effective remedy to victim: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires states parties to ensure that victims of violations of the Covenant have an effective remedy.
    • Role of business: The report also dealt with the role of businesses and stated that when a state requires that an information and communications technology company provide user data, it can only supply it in respect of legitimate reasons.
    • Earlier, due to concerns of member states, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 68/167 affirming that rights held by people offline must also be protected online.
    • The resolution also called upon all states to respect and protect the right to privacy, including in digital communication.

    Conclusion

    Indians have a right to call upon NSO to terminate the agreement, if any, with the Indian government or any private player and to cooperate with citizens to unravel the truth.

  • One nation, one police is a reform that is long overdue

    Context

    Police reforms are still an unfinished task, fifteen years after the Supreme Court gave directives in the Prakash Singh case in 2006.

    Integrated schemes in different facilities

    • The Government of India has lately been talking of “One Nation, One Ration Card”, “One Nation, One Registry”, “One Nation, One Gas Grid”, and even “One Nation, One Election”.
    • These ideas would contribute to an integrated scheme in different facilities and networks across the country.
    • The attempt at uniformity should, however, take cognisance of local factors and special features.

    Issue of different states passing different Police Act

    • Every state is legislating a different Police Act, purportedly in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions on police reforms given on September 22, 2006.
    • We are in the process of having “one nation, many police acts”.
    • Circumventing the Prakash Singh judgement: The objective behind these laws is to give legislative cover to the existing arrangement and thereby circumvent the judicial directions given in the Prakash Singh judgement in 2006.
    •  Eighteen states have already passed Police Acts.
    • Absence of central guidelines: Several states have, in the absence of any central guidance or directive, passed their own Police Acts, blatantly violating the Supreme Court’s directions.
    • No action by judiciary: The Supreme Court has, for inexplicable reasons, not issued a contempt notice to any of the states for non-compliance of its directions on police reforms.

    Way forward

    1) The Centre should legislate a Model Police Act

    • Article 252 of the Constitution gives Parliament the power to legislate for two or more states by consent.
    • Soon after the Supreme Court’s directions on police reforms, the Police Act Drafting Committee of the Ministry of Home Affairs came out with the Model Police Act, 2006.
    • The Government of India should have enacted a law based on this Model Police Act with such changes as it may have found necessary, and the states should have mutatis mutandis ( making necessary alterations while not affecting the main point at issue) adopted it.
    • The least that the Government of India could have done was to legislate for the UTs and then prevailed upon the states to pass similar legislation.
    • Enacting a law in the states could have been incentivised by linking their passage with the modernisation grants made available to the states.

    2) Need for the spirit of cooperative federalism

    • In recent times, we saw the unseemly spectacle of the Mumbai police commissioner accusing the state home minister of using the police as an instrument for extortion.
    • In West Bengal, the police have been a mute spectator to the post-election violence.
    • The Centre, through a fiat, gave protection to all the MLAs of the BJP.
    • Normally, any such arrangement should have been in consultation and with the involvement of the state government. 
    • Cooperative federalism: The best option would be for the central and state governments to respect each other’s turf in a spirit of cooperative federalism.

    3)Need for a fresh look at the distribution of power

    • If the central and state governments cannot respect each other’s turf, it would perhaps be necessary to have a fresh look at the distribution of powers in the seventh schedule of the Constitution.

    Conclusion

    Police reforms on the lines of judicial directives given by the Supreme Court is the need of the hour. The centre needs to act first and nudge the states toward a uniform police structure throughout the country.

    Back2Basics: Supreme Court Directive on Police Reforms

    1) Limit political control

    • Constitute a State Security Commission to:
    • Ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police.
    • Lay down broad policy guidelines.
    • Evaluate the performance of the state police.

    2. Appointments based on merit

    • Ensure that the Director-General of Police is appointed through a merit–based, transparent process, and secures a minimum tenure of 2 years.

    3. Fix minimum tenure

    • Ensure that other police officers on operational duties (including Superintendents of Police in charge of a district and Station House Officers in charge of a police station) are also provided a minimum tenure of 2 years.

    4. Separate police functions

    • Separate the functions of investigation and maintaining law and order.

    5. Set up fair and transparent systems

    • Set up a Police Establishment Board to decide and make recommendations on transfers, postings, promotions and other service-related matters of police officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

    6. Establish a Police Complaints Authority in each state

    • At the state level, there should be a Police Complaints Authority to look into public complaints against police officers of and above the rank of Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt or rape in police custody.
    • At the district level, the Police Complaints Authority should be set up to inquire into public complaints against the police personnel of and up to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct.

    7. Set up a selection commission

    • A National Security Commission needs to be set up at the union level to prepare a panel for selection and placement of chiefs of the Central Police Organizations with a minimum tenure of 2 years.

  • Pegasus scandal and implications for privacy

    Context

    The Pegasus spyware, created by NSO Group in Israel has created a political storm in India over its alleged use by the government.

    About the Pegasus spyware controversy

    • It uses a “zero-click” attack which allows the device to be taken over remotely by exploiting software and hardware vulnerabilities.
    • The Israeli Defence Ministry’s stated that Pegasus and other cyber products are exported “exclusively to government entities” and are only for the purpose of preventing and investigating crime and counter terrorism.
    • Pegasus has been used to illegally hack into people’s lives and to obtain private information outside the boundaries of the law.
    • Those who were supposedly targeted range from the uppermost echelons of the judiciary, Opposition party leaders, activists and journalists.

    How it harms freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Constitution

    • A person has the basic fundamental rights of liberty, privacy, speech and expression amongst others.
    • These rights go hand in hand with each other.
    • The alleged use of Pegasus to illegally hack into persons’ lives, listen in on private conversations, to thereafter use this private information against said persons in hope of gaining undue advantage, are all outside the boundaries of the law.
    •  Surveillance on this level would have the effect of instilling fear and directly hampering a person’s ability to freely make their own decisions.
    • The effect is that a person does not have the freedom to think, to speak or even be in the privacy of their own homes.

    Legal provisions for surveillance

    • In December 2018, the government authorised 10 security and intelligence agencies to intercept, monitor and decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource.
    • The authorisation is required before any of the 10 notified agencies can intercept, monitor or decrypt any information.
    • This and other grounds are being taken by the government before the Supreme Court to defend its stance.
    • The Data Protection Bill (yet to be passed by Parliament) offers no protection in respect of surveillance. 
    • Sections 43 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 criminalise hacking.

    Conclusion

    The majority is not always right. A democracy has the indelible right to question, to demand answers and explanations. The government has many questions to answer and steps to take to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

    Back2Basics: Zero-click attack

    • A zero-click attack is a remote cyber attack which does not require any interaction from the target to compromise it.
    • Pegasus spyware eliminates the need for human errors to compromise a device and instead relies on software or hardware flaws to gain complete access to a device.
    • Zero-click attacks occur only when an attacker is able to takeover a device remotely after successfully exploiting vulnerabilities in the software and hardware of the phone.
    • To make this kind of attack successful, an attacker needs to exploit flaws in a device, whereas spear phishing is a social engineering attack.

  • Speedy trial a fundamental right: HC

    The Bombay High Court has said that speedy trial is a fundamental right highlighting the issue of people languishing in prisons waiting for the trial to begin.

    Background

    • The HC was hearing a petition seeking a judicial probe into the death of a tribal rights activist.
    • The petitioner told the court that he was not looking for the cause of the death, but an inquiry into what happened in jail that ultimately led to his death.

    Right to speedy trial

    • It is a right under which it is asserted that a government prosecutor may not delay the trial of a criminal suspect arbitrarily and indefinitely.
    • Otherwise, the power to impose such delays would effectively allow prosecutors to send anyone to jail for an arbitrary length of time without trial.
    • Right to speedy trial is a concept gaining recognition and importance day by day.

    Its constitutional status

    • The right to speedy trial is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
    • In the case Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1961) it was declared that right to speedy trial is an essential part of fundamental right to life and liberty.
    • Article 21 declares that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure laid by law.”

    What causes delay?

    • Delay in disposition of cases due to huge pendency
    • Provision for adjournment
    • Vacation of the court
    • Investigative agencies generally delay

    Why speedy trial is necessary?

    The right to a speedy trial serves several important purposes:

    • First, requiring a speedy trial helps to ensure that a defendant does not have to spend an unreasonable amount of time in jail.
    • It also helps to respect and protect the mental health of the defendant by making sure that the defendant is not kept in suspense or anxiety over pending criminal charges for months or years at a time.
    • The right to a speedy trial protects a defendant’s ability to gather evidence for his or her own defense.
    • Over time, physical evidence can become harder and harder to locate, and witnesses may move, lose their memories of an event, or even pass away.

    Alternative solutions

    • The Law Commission of India and the Malimath Committee recommended that the system of plea bargaining should be introduced in Indian criminal justice system.
    • Plea bargaining refers to a person charged with a criminal offence negotiating with the prosecution for a lesser punishment than what is provided in law by pleading guilty to a less serious offence.
    • This will facilitate the speedy disposal of criminal cases and reduces the burden on the courts at least for some minor trials and not serious criminal offences.

  • Issue of undertrials

    Context

    After the death of Stan Swamy, questions about the conditions of jails and treatment of the incarcerated have been raised anew.

    Issue of deaths of prisoners

    • The NCRB data reports the death of over 1,800 prisoners in the year 2018. An estimated 70 percent of prison inmates are undertrials.
    • Despite constitutional provisions like Article 21, which says, no person shall be denied life or liberty except by the due process of law, the number of undertrials is increasing.

    How prisoners are subjected to additional torture

    • Overcrowding, delayed medical attention, unhygienic conditions and malnutrition exist in all Indian prisons.
    • It is the responsibility of the State and the judiciary to ensure that they are only deprived of their liberty and are not exposed to any additional torture in the form of medical deprivation, unhygienic conditions, bad or inadequate food, etc.
    • Yet, thousands are dying every year and the prison authorities are not made accountable.

    Way forward

    • Acts of extreme neglect that could result in the death of inmates should be acknowledged as extrajudicial torture and made an offense.
    • The SC in Sunil Batra (I) v. Delhi Administration (1978), held that “the humane thread of jail jurisprudence that runs right through is that no prison authority enjoys amnesty for unconstitutionality”.
    • ARC Recommendations on Prison Reforms: The Union and State Governments should work out, fund and implement at the
      earliest, modernization and reforms of the Prison System as recommended by the All India Committee on Jail Reforms (1980-83).
      b. The attendant legislative measures should also be expedited.
      c. Rules regarding Parole and Remission need to be reviewed.
    • Infrastructure: Prisoner Information System, Biometric Identification, facilities for pregnant women, up-gradation of hospitals, etc is needed.
    • Strengthening the Open Prison System.

    Conclusion

    The government needs to take urgent measures to address the issue of additional torture in various forms and the death of prisoners.