The Committee Against Torture (CAT) is a treaty body of human rights experts that monitors implementation of the United Nations Convention against Torture by state parties. The committee is one of eight UN-linked human rights treaty bodies. All state parties are obliged under the convention to submit regular reports to the CAT on how rights are being implemented. Upon ratifying the convention, states must submit a report within one year, after which they are obliged to report every four years. The committee examines each report and addresses its concerns and recommendations to the state party in the form of "concluding observations." Under certain circumstances, the CAT may consider complaints or communications from individuals claiming that their rights under the convention have been violated.
The CAT usually meets in April/May and November each year in Geneva. Members are elected to four-year terms by state parties and can be re-elected if nominated.
Tasks and activities Ratifications In their ratification of the agreement, the states had to expressly agree to the state and individual complaints procedure, the examination procedure and the intern. The court had to expressly refuse them if they did not agree, such as, for example, Poland. German-speaking countries für nähere Angaben, siehe Status of treaties für nähere Angaben, siehe Status of treaties für nähere Angaben, siehe Status of treaties für nähere Angaben, siehe Status of treaties Convention against Torture 01.10.1990 02.11.1990 29.07.1987 02.12.1986 investigation process (Art. 20 FoK) no reservation no reservation no reservation no reservation State cases (21 FoK) yes yes yes yes individual applications (Art. 22 FoK) yes yes yes yes Intern. Court of Justice (Art. 30 FoK) no reservation no reservation no reservation no reservation None of these states has created the independent investigation and complaints office, which means that there is no effective remedy for torture.
Rules of Procedure of the CAT In order to carry out its duties as defined in Part II FoC, the committee established a Rules of Procedure (VerfO) governing the organization, procedures and responsibilities of the committee (Article 18 (2) FoK). It is also based on the Addis Ababa directive on the independence and impartiality of UN treaty bodies.
It consists of 2 parts, Part I. General Provisions and Part II. Provisions relating to the tasks of the committee. It is further subdivided into 19 chapters and contains 121 rules (version /C/3/Rev.6). These are numbered and in a revision of the VerfO the rules get new numbers.
In the revision on February 21, 2011, in Chap. 17 and 21 introduced a follow-up Fassung: CAT/C/55/3 vom 17. September 2015 procedure to review the implementation of the committee's recommendations, stating that states ignored its recommendations.
The relevant chapters of the VerfO are: Cape. 17. Reports of the Contracting States pursuant to Art. 19 FoK Cape. 19. Investigation procedure under Art. 20 FoK Cape. 20. Treatment of state complaints under Art. 21 FoK Cape. 21. Examination of individual complaints under Art. 22 FoK
Examination of the state reports The predominant activity is to examine the statements of account of the contracting states, in which they must state how they implemented the contract(Art. 19 FoK). The course of the examination is described in chap. 17 of the VerfO regulated. The states must submit an initial report to the committee within one year of the conclusion of the contract, followed by a periodic report about every four years thereafter. If a state does not submit a report, the committee notes this in its annual report to the United Nations General Assembly (Resolution 67 RMA).
Due to the overloading of the committees, the Simplified Reporting Procedure was introduced by the UN General Assembly. If no material shortcomings have been identified at the time of the last review of a country report, the committee can now proceed with the simplified procedure, in which it issues to the contracting parties a list of issues before reporting (LOIPR). Replies to LOIs) are then considered as periodic state reports (Rule 66 RMA).
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and national human rights organizations (NHRIs) can also actively participate in the state reporting process and submit parallel reports to the state reports in order to show that the implementation of the civil pact by the contracting states is insufficient. In the process, gaps or errors in the state report can be clarified and deficits pointed out.
The report review takes place in public meetings in which the committee examines whether the state party correctly implemented the Torture Convention and how it could remedy existing shortcomings (Rule 70 RMA). For the participation of third parties in the public hearing, an admission is required (English Accreditation).
If a state fails to file a report despite being warned, the committee examines the implementation of the FoK based on the parallel reports submitted by the NGOs and NHRIs and notes this in its annual report to the UN General Assembly (Rule 67 RMA).
If the committee determines during the audit that the state has failed to implement the agreement, it may submit proposals to remedy the deficiencies (Article 19 (3) FoK, Rule 71 of the VerfO). These proposals are called Concluding Observations.
These proposals of the CCPR are not legally binding, implementation can not be enforced and only a follow-up procedure is foreseen, in which a rapporteur examines the implementation by the state (Rule 72 RMA). If necessary, the same proposals will be made at the next state report.
Since some states are late in submitting their reports, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) has drawn up a list of states submitting their reports on time (e.g. Italy, Switzerland, etc.) and a list of those who are in Arrears (e.g. Germany, Liechtenstein, Austria, the Vatican etc.).
Investigation process The Anti-torture Convention also includes an inquiry procedure which empowers the committee to conduct investigations when reliable information is available on serious or systematic NPT violations by a state party and seeks the cooperation of the state party concerned (Article 20) FoK). This examination procedure is regulated in Chapter 19 of the VerfO. The condition for this is that the state explicitly rejected this when ratifying the treaty (Article 28 (1) FoK).
The state is asked by the committee to participate in the investigation proceedings and to provide information on these suspicions (Article 20 (1) FoK, Rule 82 et seq. First of all, the information received is examined (Rule 81 et seq. Of the VerfO) and, if the suspicion has been substantiated, an investigation is carried out, in which case the committee can also conduct investigations in the affected state if the state agrees. Upon completion of the investigation, the committee will send the investigation report to the state concerned and, if it finds any instances of maladministration, appropriate recommendations on how to remedy them (Rule 89 RCD).
To date, 10 such studies have been performed. These were: Egypt (2017), Lebanon (2014), Nepal (2012), Brazil (2008), Serbia and Montenegro (2004), Mexico (2003), Sri Lanka (2002), Peru (2001), Egypt (1996), Turkey (1994)
The recommendations of the committee are not legally binding, their implementation can not be enforced. Apart from the fact that he can carry out a follow-up procedure to review the implementation of the recommendations or that the implementation of the recommendations will be discussed in the next state report, no further measures are foreseen (Article 20 (5) FoK, Rule 90).
If the committee is confronted with such serious or systematic torture by a state, it may also bring the matter to the attention of the UN General Assembly. The latter then decide on the further course of action, because extensive or systematic violations of the torture prohibition are considered crimes against humanity according to Art. 7 (1) of the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court in The Hague is responsible for this, provided that the fallible state does not the International Criminal Court.
State Cases This procedure is regulated in Chapter 20 of the VerfO. The committee is empowered to consider cases of state where a contracting state claims that another state party is failing to fulfill its obligations under the Convention against Torture (Article 21 FoK). The condition for this is that both states explicitly recognized the competence of the committee when ratifying the treaty (Article 21 (1) FoK, Rule 91, 97 VerO).
In contrast to individual complaints, there are no high formal requirements for state complaints, and the UNHCHR Secretariat is not authorized to declare state complaints inadmissible, as in the case of individual complaints (Art. 22 (5) FoK Individual Complaints, Rule 111 ff.
The task of the committee is to settle the dispute (Article 21 (1) lit e FoK, Rule 98 of the Rules of Procedure). If no amicable agreement is reached, a final report will be prepared, completing the procedure for the committee (Article 21 (1) (h), (ii) FoK, Rule 101 of the VerfO). For international disputes, there are rules, u. a. the agreement for the peaceful settlement of international disputes The states can then turn to the International Court of Justice within six months, provided that neither of the two states made a reservation in the ratification of the treaty (Article 30 FoK).
As a precautionary measure, 12 states rejected the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice when concluding the contract (Article 30 (1) FoK).
States do not necessarily have to refer to the International Court of Justice, there is also a European Convention on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes.
For example, on 16 December 1971, Ireland lodged a complaint against England with the ECMR for failing to comply with the prohibition of torture under Article 3 of the ECHR. Ireland could not file the complaint with either the CAT or the CCPR (Article 7 IpbpR), as they did not enter into force until about 10 years later.
Note to this judgment of the ECtHR and the consequences (Guantanamo, Abu Graib)
In its torture memos on the torture methods in Guantanamo, etc., (Web Archiv: Beaver Memo) wikisource: Beaver Memo of Oct 11, 2002, Legal Brief on Proposed Counter-Resistance Strategies the US also relied on that judgment of the European Court of Human Rights ECtHR, as the US made a reservation on inhuman and degrading treatment in accordance with Art. 7 IPbpR and Art. 16 FoK. From the ECtHR ruling, the US concluded that these five techniques of interrogation were admissible under US law because it was not torture but, according to the ECtHR, only inhuman and degrading treatment, thus allowed under US law.Faksimile: (Web Archiv: Memorandum for John Rizzo)
Obvious oversight of the UN
The requirement for a state appeal, (Web Archiv: Memorandum for John Rizzo N° 11) according to which all domestic remedies available in the case must be filed and exhausted, unless the procedure takes an undue delay in the application of the remedies (Article 21 (1) (c) FoK) an obvious oversight of the UN, as the complaining state must notify the other state of the abuses by written notice only, and if the matter has not been settled within six months, it may directly contact the committee (Article 21 (1) lit a, b IPbpR).
Individual applications
The individual complaints gem. Art. 22 FoK is euphemistically referred to as communications (individual communications versus state-to-state complaints). If a state expressly agrees with the individual complaints procedure at the time of conclusion of the contract, the committee may also examine individual complaints against that contracting state (Art. 22 (1) FoK, Rule 102 VerfO).