Nils Melzer, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on torture, said in a statement that the U.S. Government was in fact torturing Chelsea Manning by continuing to keep her in detention.

Melzer said “in a not lawful sanction but an open-ended, progressively severe coercive measure amounting to torture which should be discontinued, abolished without delay.”

Just out: My official letter to #USGovt of 1 Nov 2019 explaining why continued detention of @xychelsea is not a lawful sanction but an open-ended, progressively severe coercive measure amounting to torture & should be discontinued & abolished without delay https://t.co/uhqKoFSQSq pic.twitter.com/J662CtVAA7 — Nils Melzer (@NilsMelzer) December 31, 2019

Here is the full text of the letter that the UN Special Rapporteur sent to U.S. Government:

Excellency,

I have the honour to address you in my capacity as Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 34/19.

In this connection, I would like to bring to the attention of your Excellency’s Government information I have received regarding the use of civil contempt sanctions to detain and fine, Ms. Chelsea Manning, allegedly to coerce compliance with grand jury procedures. She is currently detained in William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in

Alexandria, Virginia.

Ms. Manning was the subject of an urgent appeal sent by my predecessor on 30 December 2010 (UA 20/2010), with regard to allegations of prolonged solitary confinement during her pre-trial detention, reportedly imposed in an effort to coerce her to testify against her will.

In follow-up to the reply by your Excellency’s Government to that letter, and after holding several discussions with the then Legal Advisor of the Government and key officials from the Departments of Defence and State, a further letter was sent to the Government on 16 June 2011 (AL 8/2011). The letter expressed concern over the refusal by the relevant authorities to allow private, unmonitored and privileged communications in accordance with the terms of reference and working methods of the mandate. Furthermore, concern over restrictive conditions for prisons visits and for interviews with inmates was the subject of a press statement by the mandate holder on 12 July 2011. Convicted and sentenced to 35 years of imprisonment in 2013, Ms. Manning’s sentence was commuted to 7 years of total confinement in January 2017.

While I welcome Ms. Manning’s subsequent release in May 2017, I am deeply concerned at the new allegations outlined below.

According to the information received:

In March 2019, Ms. Manning was summoned to appear and give testimony before a federal grand jury convened in the Eastern District of Virginia. The grand jury was reportedly assembled for the purpose of investigating numerous reporters, national security journalists, domestic and international publishers and freedom of information activists.

Ms. Manning objected to the subpoena and raised a number of legal challenges to its legitimacy. On 8 and 16 May 2019, having unsuccessfully requested the subpoena to be withdrawn or quashed, she was found to be in civil contempt of the court’s order to appear before the grand jury. Since then, Ms. Manning has been confined at William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in Alexandria, Virginia, with the aim of coercing her to testify. In addition, she has been subject to a daily fine, for the first thirty days at a rate of USD 500 and thereafter at the rate of USD 1000 for each day she refuses to give testimony. The duration of such coercive detention is reportedly limited to the duration of the grand jury, namely 18 months, but could be perpetuated indefinitely with the subsequent establishment of successive grand juries.

While I do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, I express serious concern at the reported use of coercive measures against Ms. Manning, particularly given the history of her previous conviction and ill-treatment in detention. It is my understanding that the practise of coercive deprivation of liberty for civil contempt under the Recalcitrant Witness Statute, 28 U.S.C § 1826, involves the intentional infliction of progressively severe mental and emotional suffering for the purposes of coercion and intimidation at the order of judicial authorities. Indeed, victims of prolonged coercive confinement have demonstrated post-traumatic symptoms and other severe and

persistent mental and physical health consequences.

Based on these elements I conclude that such deprivation of liberty does not constitute a circumscribed sanction for a specific offence, but an open-ended, progressively severe measure of coercion fulfilling all the constitutive elements of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In my view, such measures do not fall under the “lawful sanctions” exception of Article 1 CAT, but are contrary to the absolute, non-derogable and peremptory prohibition of torture and, therefore, should be discontinued and abolished without delay. More specifically, the practice of coercive detention appears to be incompatible with the international human rights obligations of the United States under, inter alia, Articles 1, 2, 15 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), as well as under Articles 2, 7 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); ratified by the United States of America in 1994 and 1992 respectively.

Click here to read the rest of the report in full.