The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the International Definition of Torture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enacted on June 28, 2002, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which refers explicitly to Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture, extends protection to a new category of persons, namely, “person in need of protection”. This article discusses how the courts will interpret sub-paragraph 97(1)(a) of the Act when determining whether a person is a “person in need of protection” as defined by the Act. The author suggests that the inclusion of the sub-paragraph in question constitutes a direct implementation of the principle precluding the return of a person who faces the risk of being tortured to his or her country of origin. Through a brief overview of the principles governing the integration of international law into Canadian domestic law, the author argues that the Courts have an obligation to interpret the word “torture” in accordance with the Convention and the international definition of the word. The author then proceeds to circumscribe the breadth of the international definition of torture by examining each of the constituent elements of the concept: the conduct, the intention of the offender and the purpose of the conduct, the identity of the offender and the exclusions. In doing so, she assesses the interpretation which different international instruments, jurisprudence and external documents have attributed to these components, including the work of the Human Rights Committee and the Committee Against Torture, as well as the jurisprudence of both the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".