UN Committee against Torture

Committee against Torture ; Committee Against Torture
Organization type	Committee
Abbreviation	CAT
management	Jens MODVIG
Founded	June 26, 1987
Headquarters	Geneva
Upper organization	UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR)

The Committee against Torture (Engl. Committee Against Torture , CAT) is a set up by the UN monitoring body that the implementation and compliance with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment monitored (Convention against Torture, FoK) by States Parties. If he discovers deficiencies during the inspection, he can submit proposals and recommendations to the states on how they can improve the implementation of the treaty (Art. 62 para. 3 UN Charter). The CAT is composed of 10 experts and meets four times a year in Geneva.

In addition to the Committee against Torture, there is also the Sub-Committee for the Prevention of Torture (SPT), which monitors compliance with the Optional Protocol (OPCAT) to the Convention against Torture .

tasks and activities

The creation of the committee and its tasks are contained in Part II FoK. Its competence relate exclusively to states that have ratified the corresponding agreements (Art. 25 FoK); it also depends on the declarations and reservations made by the states when the treaty was concluded. So did u. a. Pakistan because of Sharia reservations to Articles 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 28 and 30 FoK. After violent protests by the western states, Pakistan withdrew the reservations regarding Art. 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 16 FoK. The USA also made countless reservations and reinterpretations.

Its tasks in this regard relate to:

State reports, according to Art. 19 FoK
Investigation procedure according to Art. 20 FoK
State complaints according to Art. 21 FoK
Individual complaints according to Art. 22 FoK

Contractual basis

The Convention against Torture (FoK) is a human rights agreement created by the UN . The draft treaty was submitted to the UN on December 9, 1975, and after amendments on December 10, 1984, it was passed by the UN General Assembly (resolution 39/46) and came into effect under international law on June 26, 1987. According to the preamble of the FoK, the basis of this agreement is that in Art. 7 i. V. m. Art. 4 Para. 2 IPbpR defines the prohibition of torture as mandatory international law. The absolute prohibition of torture was specified by the FoK.

Art. 1 FoK The definition of torture also includes white torture
Art. 3 FoK ban on deportation in the event of threatened torture (non-refoulement)
Art. 4 FoK Torture is a criminal offense
Art. 12 FoK examination obligation
Art. 13 FoK Creation of an independent investigation and complaint body
Art. 14 FoK compensation, compensation
Art. 16 FoK Inhuman, degrading treatment

According to the definition, torture is an act committed by state organs - if this act is committed by a third party, it is bodily harm , even if the motive is the same.

The FoK stipulates that anyone who is of the opinion that there has been a violation of the prohibition of torture by officials can contact the responsible investigative body (Art. 13 & 16 FoK); in the event of bodily harm by third parties, the police would be in favor responsible. For this purpose the Istanbul Protocol for the Investigation and Documentation of Torture was created by the UN. Very few states have created this body because they do not want to investigate against themselves.

The absolute ban on torture meant that the states mainly use white torture so that nothing could be proven to them, such as the USA in Abu Graib . If this investigative body does not exist, the person concerned has to investigate the state and collect evidence. When all domestic remedies have been exhausted, he can appeal to the committee, which does not accept the complaint due to lack of evidence.

The non-refoulement principle (Art. 3 FoK) was not yet included in the draft and was added by the GA. Most of the committee examines complaints about violations of this provision.

Ratifications

When ratifying the agreement, the states had to expressly consent to the state and individual complaint procedure, the investigation procedure and the internal. Court of Justice had to expressly reject them if they did not agree, as for example Poland.

German-speaking countries	Germany Germany	Liechtenstein Liechtenstein	Austria Austria	Switzerland Switzerland
Convention against Torture	10/01/1990	11/02/1990	07/29/1987	12/02/1986
Investigation procedure (Art. 20 FoK)	no reservation	no reservation	no reservation	no reservation
State complaints (21 FoK)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Individual complaints (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 complaint body, which means that there is no effective remedy for torture.

Rules of Procedure of the CAT

In order to carry out its tasks defined in Part II of the FoK, the committee drew up rules of procedure in which the organization, procedures and responsibilities of the committee were regulated (Art. 18 (2) FoK). It is also based on the Addis Ababa directive on the independence and impartiality of the 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 consecutively and if the Rules of Procedure are revised, the rules are given new numbers.

In the revision on February 21, 2011, chap. 17 and 21 introduced a follow-up procedure to review the implementation of the Committee's recommendations, as it found that states were ignoring its recommendations.

The relevant chapters of the Rules of Procedure are:

Cape. 17. Reports of the contracting states according to Art. 19 FoK
Cape. 19. Investigation procedure according to Art. 20 FoK
Cape. 20. Handling of state complaints according to Art. 21 FoK
Cape. 21. Examination of individual complaints according to Art. 22 FoK

Examination of the state reports

The predominant activity consists in the examination of the accounts of the contracting states, in which these must show how they implement the treaty (Art. 19 FoK). The test procedure is described in chap. 17 of the Rules of Procedure. The states have an initial report within one year after conclusion of the Committee (English. Initial report ) to submit, after approximately every four years a periodic state report (Engl. Periodical reports ). If a state does not submit a report, the committee notes this in its annual report to the UN General Assembly (Rule 67 of the Rules of Procedure).

Because of the overloading of the committees, the UN General Assembly introduced the simplified reporting procedure . If no significant deficiencies were found during the last review of a state report, the committee can now carry out the simplified procedure in which it sends the contracting states a list of issues prior to reporting (LOIPR), the answers to which it receives. Replies to LOIs ) are then considered periodic state reports (Rule 66 Rules of Procedure ).

At the state reporting procedure also can non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and national human rights organizations (NHRIs) actively participate and submit parallel reports to the state reports, show a lack of implementation of the ICCPR by States Parties. In doing so, gaps or errors in the state report can be clarified and deficits pointed out.

The review of the report takes place in public meetings in which the committee examines whether the state party is correctly implementing the anti-torture convention and how it can remedy existing deficiencies (Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure). For the participation of third parties in the public hearing, an approval is required.

If a state does not submit a report despite a warning, the committee examines the implementation of the FoK on the basis of the parallel reports submitted by the NGOs and NHRIs and notes this in its annual report to the UN General Assembly (Rule 67 of the Rules of Procedure ).

If, during the review of the report, the committee finds that the state has implemented the agreement inadequately, it can submit proposals to remedy the deficiencies (Art. 19 (3) FoK, Rule 71 Rules of Procedure). These proposals are as Concluding Observations (Engl. Concluding Observations ), respectively.

These CCPR proposals are not legally binding, the implementation cannot be enforced and only a follow-up procedure is provided in which a reporter checks the implementation by the state (Rule 72 Rules of Procedure). If necessary, the same proposals will be made in the next state report.

Since some countries do not submit their reports or submit their reports late, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) compiled a list of the countries that submit their reports on time (e.g. Italy, Switzerland, etc.) and a list of those who are in Are in arrears (e.g. Germany, Lichtenstein, Austria, the Vatican etc.).

Investigation procedure

The Convention against Torture also contains an inquiry procedure which gives the committee the authority to carry out investigations if there is reliable information about serious or systematic violations of the Convention against Torture by a contracting state; the participation of the contracting state concerned is sought (Art. 20 FoK). This investigation procedure is regulated in Chapter 19 of the Rules of Procedure. The prerequisite for this is that the state expressly refused to do so when it ratified the treaty (Art. 28 Para. 1 FoK).

The state is asked by the committee to participate in the investigation process and to provide information on these suspicions (Art. 20 para. 1 FoK, Rule 82 et seq. First, the information received is checked (rule 81 et seq. Rules of Procedure) and if the suspicion is confirmed, an investigation is carried out; the committee can also carry out investigations on site in the state concerned, provided the state agrees. After completion of the investigation, the committee sends the investigation report to the state concerned and, if it discovers any irregularities, appropriate recommendations on how to remedy them (Rule 89 Rules of Procedure).

So far, 10 such studies have been carried out. 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 committee's recommendations are not legally binding and their implementation cannot be enforced. Apart from the fact that he can carry out a follow-up procedure to review the implementation of the recommendations or that their implementation will be discussed in the next state report, no further measures are planned (Art. 20 (5) FoK, Rule 90 Rules of Procedure).

When faced with such severe or systematic torture by a state, the committee can also bring the matter to the attention of the UN General Assembly . This then decides on how to proceed, because extensive or systematic violations of the prohibition of torture are considered crimes against humanity according to Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court in The Hague is responsible for this, provided that the guilty state recognized the International Criminal Court .

State complaints

This procedure is regulated in Chapter 20 of the Rules of Procedure. The committee is empowered to examine complaints from states if a state party asserts that another state party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention against Torture (Art. 21 FoK). The prerequisite for this is that both states explicitly recognized the competence of the committee in a declaration when the treaty was ratified (Art. 21 Para. 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 is the case with individual complaints (Art. 22 (5) FoK individual complaints, Rule 111 et seq.

The task of the committee is to settle the dispute (Art. 21 para. 1 lit e FoK, rule 98 Rules of Procedure). If no amicable agreement can be reached, a final report is drawn up, which concludes the procedure for the committee (Art. 21 Para. 1 lit h, ii FoK, rule 101 Rules of Procedure). There are rules for international disputes, including: 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 neither of the two states made a reservation in this regard when ratifying the treaty (Art. 30 FoK).

As a precautionary measure, 12 states rejected the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice when the contract was signed (Art. 30, Paragraph 1 FoK).

The states do not necessarily have to turn to the International Court of Justice; there is also a European agreement for the peaceful settlement of disputes .

On December 16, 1971, Ireland submitted a state complaint against England to the ECMR for violating the prohibition of torture under Article 3 of the ECHR. Ireland was unable to submit the complaint to either the CAT or the CCPR (Art. 7 IpbpR) as these only came into force around 10 years later.

Note on this judgment of the ECHR and the consequences (Guantanamo, Abu Graib)

In its torture memos on the methods of torture in Guantanamo, etc., the USA relied on this judgment of the ECHR, as the USA had a reservation on inhuman and degrading treatment according to Art. Art. 7 IPbpR and Art. 16 FoK. From the judgment of the ECHR, the USA concluded that these torture methods ( five techniques of interrogation ) used by England were permissible under American law, since it is not torture, but according to the ECHR only inhuman and degrading treatment, thus allowed under American law. On December 4, 2014, Ireland requested the ECHR to revise the judgment that it was torture and not just inhuman and degrading treatment, the appeal was rejected by the ECHR.

Obvious oversight by the UN

This is the condition for a state complaint, according to which all domestic legal remedies available in the matter must be lodged and exhausted, unless the procedure for applying the legal remedies takes an unreasonably long time (Art. 21 (1 ) ( c ) FoK) an obvious oversight by the UN, as the complaining state only has to inform the other state of the grievances in writing and if the matter has not been settled within six months, it can contact the committee directly (Art. 21 para. 1 lit a, b IPbpR).

Individual complaints

The individual complaints according to Art. 22 FoK are euphemistically referred to as notifications ( individual communications versus state-to-state complaints ). If a state expressly consented to the individual complaint procedure when the contract was concluded, the committee can also examine individual complaints against this contracting state (Art. 22 (1) FoK, rule 102 Rules of Procedure).

The procedures of the complaint procedure are listed in Chapter 21 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as the formal requirements for individual complaints (Rule 104 of the Rules of Procedure) and the requirements for their admissibility (Rule 113 of the Rules of Procedure). The UNHCHR created a model complaint form and an accompanying information sheet.

The complaint must be submitted in writing, it must not be anonymous and must be written in one of the working languages of the committee, for which the national legal process must be unsuccessful. Only then can a complaint be submitted to the committee, there is no deadline for a complaint, but a complaint is usually no longer accepted after five years ( ratione temporis ). The complaint can be rejected on the grounds that the committee is not competent because the alleged violation is not included in the FoK ( ratione materiae ) or it would constitute an abuse of the right to complain. The same complaint may also not be submitted to another international body (e.g. the ECHR , another UN treaty body , etc.) (Art. 22 (5) FoK, Rule 104, 113 Rules of Procedure).

The complaints submitted to the UN are first formally examined by the UNHCHR Secretariat . Then the complaint is either rejected or registered and forwarded to the committee (rule 104. Rules of Procedure). No statistics are kept on the number of complaints already rejected by the Secretariat.

If the complaint has been rejected by the secretariat, the complainant will be informed of this in a standard letter. For the rejection of the complaint submitted to the CERD, CAT and the CCPR, it uses the same form, in which mostly insufficient reasons are ticked, although this is not provided for and information would have to be obtained instead (Rule 105 Rules of Procedure). If the complaint has been accepted, the secretariat prepares a summary - which can alienate the complaint - and forwards it to the committee (Rule 106 Rules of Procedure). The committee then examines the material admissibility of the complaint / summary (Art. 22 (5) FoK, Rule 113, 116 Rules of Procedure). If he declared the complaint to be inadmissible, then - in contrast to the secretariat - he justified his decision as to the inadmissibility of the complaint. If it has been approved, the summary is forwarded to the state concerned for comment, whereupon the latter can raise the objection of inadmissibility (Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure). The committee is also trying to reach an amicable agreement. If the contracting state agrees, this is recorded in a decision ( discontinuance decision ) and the case is settled.

Only afterwards does he deal with the content of the complaint (rule 118 Rules of Procedure). If the committee found a breach of contract, it issues proposals and recommendations to the state on how to remedy this (Art. 22 (7) FoK).

The recommendations are not legally binding, their implementation cannot be enforced, only a follow-up procedure is provided in which the implementation of the recommendations is checked by the state and, if necessary, it will be discussed in the next state reporting process. Sanctions are not provided against fallible states. Although in the preamble of the FoK the prohibition of torture according to Art. 7 IPbpR was given as a basis and according to Art. 4 Para. 2 IpBPR the prohibition of torture is part of mandatory international law - it has no consequences for the fallible state, the CAT only recommends that it stop.

Precautionary measures

When submitting the complaint, interim measures can also be requested at the same time if irreparable damage can occur. Such requests must be submitted as soon as possible, marked Urgent Interim measures , so that the committee has sufficient time to consider the request and order such measures. The committee can also order precautionary measures on its own initiative, but they do not constitute a decision on the admissibility of the complaint or the determination of a breach of contract by the state (Rule 114 Rules of Procedure).

Complaints to the CAT and ECHR

A complaint, for example because of a violation of the prohibition of torture according to Art. 7 IPbpR, Art. 1 FoK and Art. 3 ECHR, may not be submitted to the committee, the ECHR or another UN treaty body at the same time , so-called same-matter reservation (Art. 22 para. 5 lit a FoK). However, it is permissible to submit a complaint to the committee for a violation of Art. 1 FoK violation of the prohibition of torture and to the ECHR a complaint about a violation of Art. 11 ECHR of freedom of assembly and association , as there is no overlap, but different contractual violations by the same state concerns.

There are complaints that were first submitted to the ECHR, but were not accepted by it, with the standard reasoning: the complaint does not appear to violate the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Convention (ECHR) or its additional protocols . The complaint that was then submitted to the UN committee was then rejected on the grounds that it had allegedly been examined by the ECHR, even though the ECHR did not examine the substance of the complaint but did not accept it.

In accordance with decision no. 577/2013 of the CAT committee of February 9, 2016, within the meaning of NB c. Russia for torture. The complainant had at the same time submitted an identical complaint to the ECHR (No. 33772/13), which is why the CAT committee rejected the complaint (see decision RZ 8.2). In the judgment database HUDOC of the ECHR, however, there is no judgment with the No. 33772/13, as the complaint was refused by the law firm and struck from the register - and therefore not examined by the ECHR.

In the meantime, the committee has made decisions in which it nevertheless examined such complaints.

General remarks

The Committee published the interpretation and clarification of certain provisions in the Convention against Torture General remarks (English. General comments ). They are intended to dispel misunderstandings and to assist the contracting states in fulfilling their contractual obligations. To date, the committee has written four General Comments (GC).

GC No. 1 (1997): Implementation of Art. 3 FoK (refoulement prohibition) in connection with Art. 22 FoK individual right of appeal
GC No. 2 Implementation of Art. 2 FoK Prevention of Torture
GC No. 3 (2012) Implementation of Art. 14 FoK reparation
GC No. 4 (2017) Implementation of Art. 3 FoK (refoulement prohibition) in connection with Art. 22 FoK individual right of appeal

Members of the CAT

The members appointed according to Art. 17 FoK for 4 years each

Surname	country	until on
Ms. Essadia BELMIR	Morocco Morocco	12/31/21
Felice GAER	United States United States	12/31/19
Mr. Abdelwahab HANI	Tunisia Tunisia	12/31/19
Mr. Claude HELLER ROUASSANT	Mexico Mexico	12/31/19
Mr. Jens MODVIG	Denmark Denmark	12/31/21
Ms. Ana RACU	Moldova Republic Moldova	12/31/19
Mr. Diego RODRÍGUEZ-PINZON	Colombia Colombia	12/31/21
Mr. Sébastien TOUZE	France France	12/31/19
Mr. Bakhtiyar TUZMUKHAMEDOV	Russia Russia	12/31/21
Ms. Honghong ZHANG	China People's Republic People's Republic of China	12/31/21

Decisions of the CAT

Statistics of complaints

Decisions of the CAT committee
States	Pending	impermissible	set	violation	No violation	Registered
Germany Germany	1	0	0	1	1	3
Liechtenstein Liechtenstein	0	0	0	0	0	0
Austria Austria	0	1	1	1	1	4th
Switzerland Switzerland	22nd	8th	65	16	57	168
66 states in total	158	70	197	107	165	697

The figures are without the complaints already rejected by the Secretariat of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The individual decisions can also be called up in the UN database.

Germany

In a decision published on June 27, 2013, the committee found that Germany had violated Article 3 of the FoK by extraditing the French-Tunisian national Onsi Abichou to Tunisia , because he was threatened with torture there (refoulement ban). The complaint to the CAT was filed by his wife Inass Abichou on August 25, 2010.

According to the CAT decision, Ms. Abichou turned to the ECHR on August 20, 2010, invoking Art. 3 and 6 ECHR and requested precautionary measures in accordance with Art. 39 Rules of Procedure - ECHR. As early as August 23, 2010, the ECHR sent her the decision not to intervene (Application No. 33841/10) with the standard reasoning: the complaint does not appear to violate the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Convention (ECHR) or its additional protocols (see CAT decision RZ 2.11 and 4.3).

In the judgment database HUDOC of the ECHR, however, there is no judgment with the No. 33772/13, as the complaint was refused by the law firm and struck from the register - and therefore not examined by the ECHR (Art. 22 (5) lit a FoK same-matter reservation).

On August 25, 2010, Ms. Abichou turned to the CAT with the same complaint and on the same day her husband was extradited from Germany to Tunisia. The CAT examined Ms. Abichou's complaint and relied on judgment 246/07 of the ECtHR in the sense of Ben Khemais c. Italy of February 24, 2009 (CAT - Decision No. 430/2010 p. 5 footnote 9: European Court of Human Rights, Ben Khemais v. Italy, Case No. 247/07, February 24, 2009 ). Which is why the CAT came to the conclusion that Germany should not have extradited Onsi Abichou to Tunisia (CAT decision No. 430/2010 RZ 11.4).

Tunisia had ratified the Anti-Torture Convention on September 23, 1988 and both state complaints pursuant to Art. 21 FoK and individual complaints acc. Art. 22 FoK approved. Neither Germany nor Italy had lodged a state complaint against Tunisia with the CAT.

Additional information

Reports on the state reports

literature

Foreign Office: ABC of the United Nations , human rights pacts and their review bodies p. 155 ff., May 2017, 9th edition, pdf, 308 p.

CPT: CPT standards p. 95 chap. VII. Combating impunity (of torture) , pdf, 108 pp.

Council of Europe: For the independent and effective investigation of complaints against the police , CommDH (2009) 4, March 12, 2009, pdf, 19 pp.

Manfred Nowak: Introduction to the international human rights system. Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Vienna 2002, ISBN 3-7083-0080-7 .

UNHCHR The Istanbul Protocol Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Punishment, New York and Geneva 2004, engl., Pdf. 81 pp.

UNHCHR: The United Nations Human Rights Treaty System Fact Sheet No. 30 / Rev.1; New York and Geneva, 2012, pdf. 74 pp.

UNHCHR: Individual Complaint Procedures under the United Nations Human Rights Treaties Fact Sheet No.7 / Rev.2, pdf. 20 pp.

UNHCHR: A Handbook for Civil Society Working with the United Nations Human Rights Program, New York and Geneva, 2008, engl., Pdf. 206 pp.

UNHCHR: Handbook for Human Rights Treaty Body Members New York and Geneva, 2015, engl., Pdf. 98 pp.

CAT: The Committee against Torture , Fact Sheet No.17, New York and Geneva, pdf. 10 pp.

Web links

Committee against Torture (CAT), website of the Committee against Torture
UN Committee against Torture , website Humanrights.ch
Case law of the CAT , from the practice of the UN Committee against Torture, website Humanrights.ch

Individual evidence

↑ In addition to Russian, the abbreviation CAT is used in all other official languages of the committee, including Arabic and Chinese, and also by the German Foreign Office

↑ On June 26th, 1987 the contract came into force, see Art. 27 para. 1 FoK. The first election took place after 6 months, Art. 17 Para. 4 FoK

↑ Human Rights Bodies. UN human rights organs. Published by: UN High Commissioner for Human Rights , UNHCHR, accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

^ The Core International Human Rights Instruments and their monitoring bodies. Published by UNHCHR, accessed April 3, 2019 .

↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In: Liechtenstein Collection of Laws . Retrieved April 3, 2019 .

↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Ratification status of the FoK - Status of treaties. In: Treaty collection of the UN . Retrieved April 3, 2019 .

↑ Charter of the United Nations. In: Liechtenstein Collection of Laws. Retrieved April 3, 2019 .

^ UN Committee Against Torture. In: UN: Human rights organs. Published by Humanrights.ch , accessed on April 3, 2019 .

^ Committee against Torture. In: CAT institutions. Published by Praetor Intermedia UG , accessed on April 3, 2019 .

↑ ^a ^b Membership of the CAT. Members of the CAT. Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ ^a ^b ^c Monitoring the prevention of torture. Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ Optional protocol to the UN Convention against Torture. In: Liechtenstein Collection of Laws. Retrieved April 3, 2019 .

↑ ^a ^b Working methods. How the CAT works. Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ The state is only obliged under international law to comply with the treaty after ratification. In Germany, the dualistic system applies, in which the contract must first be transformed into national law before it becomes justiciable. In Lichtenstein, Austria and Switzerland the monistic system applies, according to which the treaty becomes applicable immediately upon ratification.

↑ According to Art. 2 VVK, a "reservation" is a unilateral declaration made by a state when it joins a treaty, through which the state aims to exclude or change the legal effect of individual contractual provisions in this state

↑ ^a ^b Inquiries. Investigation procedure for systemic breaches of contract. In: Human Rights Bodies. Published by UNHCHR , accessed April 3, 2019 .

↑ ^a ^b Inquiry Procedure. Confidential inquiries under article 20 of the Convention. In: Human Rights Bodies . Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ ^a ^b Completed inquiries and related documentation by State party. Reports under article 20. Ed .: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 .

↑ ^a ^b ^c Inter-State Complaints. State complaints. In: Human Rights Bodies. Published by UNHCHR, accessed April 3, 2019 .

↑ ^a ^b Procedure for complaints by individuals under the human rights treaties. Complaints procedure. In: Human Rights Bodies. Published by UNHCHR, accessed April 3, 2019 .

↑ ^a ^b ^c The admissibility of the complaint. The admissibility of individual complaints. In: Human Rights Bodies. Published by UNHCHR, accessed April 3, 2019 .

↑ ^a ^b Procedures of the individual committees. In: Human Rights Bodies . Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ Human rights treaty . Published by: German Institute for Human Rights , accessed on April 3, 2019 .

↑ ^a ^b 3452 (xxx) Declaration on the protection of all persons from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. (pdf) Draft Anti-Torture Convention. Published by: UN German Translation Service , December 9, 1975, accessed on April 3, 2019 .

^ Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. UN Res. A / RES / 39/46 FoK. Published by: UN General Assembly , December 10, 1984, accessed on April 3, 2019 .

↑ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Civil Pact, IPbpR. Published by: Liechtenstein Collection of Laws (LILEX), accessed on April 3, 2019 .

↑ ^a ^b Ratification status of the IPbpR - Status of treaties. In: Treaty collection of the UN . Retrieved April 3, 2019 .

^ The Convention against Torture and the UN Civil Pact. In: CAT history. Published by Praetor Intermedia UG , accessed on April 3, 2019 .

↑ ^a ^b Right to remedy and duty to investigate complaints, Art. 12, 13 and 16. (pdf) In: Shadow report from Amnesty International Germany. Ed: CAT , pp. 35 - 38 , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English, is an exemplary example, the deficiency is the same everywhere, DA-CH-LI).

↑ For the independent and effective investigation of complaints against the police. (pdf) Ed: Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, accessed on April 3, 2019 .

↑ ^a ^b ^c Istanbul Protocol. (pdf) Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Published by: High Commissioner for Human Rights, accessed April 3, 2019 .

↑ Holger Furtmayr, Andreas Frewer: The Istanbul Protocol and the Documentation of Torture. (pdf) Retrieved April 3, 2019 .

↑ Germany: Reporting status; Acceptance of individual complaints; Acceptance of the inquiry procedure. Summary of all contracts. Published by: UNHCHR , accessed on April 3, 2019 (for details, see Status of Treaties).

↑ Liechtenstein: Reporting status; Acceptance of individual complaints; Acceptance of the inquiry procedure. Summary of all contracts. Published by: UNHCHR, accessed on April 3, 2019 (for details, see Status of Treaties).

↑ Austria: Reporting status; Acceptance of individual complaints; Acceptance of the inquiry procedure. Summary of all contracts. Published by: UNHCHR, accessed on April 3, 2019 (for details, see Status of Treaties).

↑ Switzerland: Reporting status; Acceptance of individual complaints; Acceptance of the inquiry procedure. Summary of all contracts. Published by: UNHCHR, accessed on April 3, 2019 (for details, see Status of Treaties).

↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Rules of procedure. In: Human Rights Bodies. Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ Addis Ababa guidelines. Guidelines on the independence and impartiality of members of the human rights treaty bodies. In: Human Rights Bodies. Published by UNHCHR , accessed April 3, 2019 .

↑ ^a ^b ^c IV. Follow-up to concluding observations. In: Working methods. Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ ^a ^b Follow-up Reports to the Complaints Procedure. In: Human Rights Bodies . Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ ^a ^b ^c Follow-up to concluding observations procedure. In: Human Rights Bodies . Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ ^a ^b ^c Guidelines for follow-up to concluding observations. In: Human Rights Bodies . Published by: CAT, accessed on April 3, 2019 (English, version: CAT / C / 55/3 of September 17, 2015).

^ States parties reports. State reports submitted. Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ guidelines on a common core document and treaty-specific document when submitting a report to any human rights treaty body. Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ ^a ^b report mode. In: Anti-Torture Convention. Published by: German Institute for Human Rights , accessed on April 3, 2019 .

↑ Treatment of state reports. In: UN Committee Against Torture. Published by Humanrights.ch , accessed on April 3, 2019 .

↑ Guidelines on the form and content of initial reports. Version CAT / C / 4 / Rev.3 from July 18, 2005. Published by CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ General guidelines regarding the form and contents of periodic reports to be submitted by states parties. Version CAT / C / 14 / Rev.1 dated June 2, 1998. Published by CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ UN Res. 68/268 Strengthening and enhancing the effective functioning of the human rights treaty body system. (PDF) Published by: UN General Assembly , April 21, 2014, accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ UN Res. 68/268 Strengthening and improving the effective functioning of the system of human rights treaty bodies. (PDF) German translation. In: Refworld.org. Published by: UN General Assembly, April 21, 2014, accessed April 3, 2019 .

↑ Simplified reporting procedure. simplified state reporting procedure. In: Human Rights Bodies . Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

^ V. Strategies to encourage reporting by States parties including the List of Issues Prior Reporting (LOIPR). In: Working methods. Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ Optional reporting procedure. Status of the optional reporting procedure of the CAT and proposals for its revision. Published by: CAT, accessed on April 3, 2019 (English): "Version: CAT / C / 47/2 of September 27, 2011"

↑ Lists of issues (LOIs & LOIPR). Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ Replies to LOIs. Answering the questions of the CCPR - the new periodical state reports. Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

^ Info from Civil Society Organizations. In: Human Rights Bodies . Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ Info from NHRIs. In: Human Rights Bodies . Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

^ Information for Civil Society Organizations and National Human Rights Institutions. In: Human Rights Bodies . Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ Admission to negotiations with the committee. Ed: CCPR , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ Concluding Observations. Final observations. Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

↑ ^a ^b ^c Legal instruments. (pdf) In: ABC of Human Rights. Published by: Federal Department of Foreign Affairs , FDFA, p. 10 , accessed on April 3, 2019 .

↑ UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Published by: German Institute for Human Rights , accessed on April 3, 2019 .

^ List of States parties without overdue reports - Late and non-reporting States. Published by UNHCHR , accessed April 3, 2019 .

^ Roman Statute of the International Criminal Court. Published by: Liechtenstein Collection of Laws (LILEX), accessed on April 3, 2019 .

^ Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Ratification status - Status of treaties. In: Treaty collection of the UN . Retrieved April 3, 2019 .

^ Agreement for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes. In: Liechtenstein Collection of Laws. Retrieved April 3, 2019 .

↑ The International Court of Justice. Chapter XIV of the United Nations Constitution. In: Liechtenstein Collection of Laws. Retrieved April 3, 2019 .

↑ European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes. In: Liechtenstein Collection of Laws. Retrieved April 3, 2019 .

↑ ^a ^b Judgment No. 5310/71 of the ECHR of January 18, 1978 in Ireland c. England. for violation of Art. 1; 3; 5; 6 and Art. 15 ECHR. In: HUDOC . Ed: ECHR , accessed April 3, 2019 .

^ Diane E. Beaver: Legal Brief on Proposed Counter-Resistance Strategies. (pdf) In: Torture Memos . Published by: Department of Defense of the USA, October 11, 2002, accessed on April 3, 2019 (English): “S. 7, points 1 & 2 of the US to the reservation in the IPbpR and point 6 the reference to the judgment of the ECHR in Ireland c. England “ (Web Archive: Beaver Memo )
wikisource: Beaver Memo of Oct 11, 2002, Legal Brief on Proposed Counter-Resistance Strategies

↑ General Jay S. Bybee: Memorandum for A. Gonzales: (Re) Standards for Conduct for Interrogation under 18 USC 2340-2340A. (pdf) In: Torture Memos . Ed: US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, August 1, 2002, accessed April 3, 2019 (English): “S. 27 below European Court of Human Rights, p. 28 f, the judgment of the ECHR in Ireland c. England and the methods of torture applied by Engand - The European Court of Human Rights concluded that these techniques used in combination, and applied for hours at a time, were inhuman and degrading but did not amount to torture. ” Facsimile: Memorandum for A. Gonzales
↑ Steven G. Bradbury: Memorandum for John Rizzo N ° 13, Re: Application of 18 USc §§ 2340-2340A to the Combined Use of Certain Techniques in the Interrogation of High Value al Qaeda Detainees. (pdf) about waterboarding and other techniques. In: Torture Memos . Published by: US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, May 10, 2005, accessed on April 3, 2019 : “S. 31 below, judgment of the ECHR in Ireland c. England - the torture methods used by England are based on America. Legally admissible as, according to the European Court of Human Rights, it is not torture but only inhuman treatment ” (Web Archive: Memorandum for John Rizzo )
↑ Steven G. Bradbury: Memorandum for John Rizzo N ° 11; Re: Application of 18 USC §§ 2340-2340A to the Combined Use of Certain Techniques in the Interrogation of High Value al Qaeda Detainees. (PDF) In: Torture Memos. Published by US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, May 30, 2005, accessed April 3, 2019 . (Web Archive: Memorandum for John Rizzo N ° 11 )
↑ Judgment No. 5310/71 of the ECHR of March 20, 2018 in Ireland c. England. Request for appeal by Ireland. In: HUDOC. Ed: ECHR, accessed April 3, 2019 .
↑ Model complaint form. (Doc) Complaint form for the CERD, CAT, CCPR committee. Published by UNHCHR, accessed April 3, 2019 .
↑ Fact Sheet No. 17 Information sheet on the complaints procedure. (pdf) Complaint form from p. 8. Ed: UNHCHR, accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).
↑ ^a ^b Recent jurisprudence. The more recent decisions of the committee. Ed: CAT, accessed April 3, 2019 (it contains only the complaints registered by the secretariat and forwarded to the committee).
↑ Follow-up to concluding observations. Ed: CAT, accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).
↑ Special circumstances of urgency or sensitivity. Precautionary measures. In: Human Rights Bodies. Published by UNHCHR , accessed April 3, 2019 .
↑ CAT: Application CAT / C / 5 / D / 5/1990 / Rev.1 by Walter Franz Leopold JEDINGER against Austria. Complaint about Art. 13 FoK prohibition of torture - was declared inadmissible because of 'same - matter'. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 : "that the same matter has not been, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. (...) the author has submitted the same matter to the ECHR, which has registered the case as application No. 16121/90 "
↑ European Commission of Human Rights: Application No. 16121/90 by Walter Franz Leopold JEDINGER against Austria. Complaint about Art. 3 ECHR prohibition of torture - was declared inadmissible. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 : "The Commission is not competent to examine complaints alleging that domestic court decisions are based on errors of law or fact unless such errors involve a violation of Convention rights."
↑ CAT: rejected because of the standard rejection of the ECHR. Decision No. 642/2014 of the CAT of October 9, 2015 in terms of MT c. Sweden. Ed: CAT, accessed on April 3, 2019 (complaint was rejected by the ECHR after 3 days (unread?) With a serial letter): "RZ 2.10: the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, found that they did not disclose any appearance of violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols and declared your application inadmissible. "
↑ CAT: Standard rejection of the ECHR. Decision No. 643/2014 of the CAT of February 16, 2016 in the sense of Mr. U. c. Sweden. Hrsg: CAT, accessed on April 3, 2019 (the complaint was (unread?) Rejected the next day by the ECHR with a serial letter): "RZ 2.6: the Court (...), sitting in a single-judge formation, found that they did not disclose any appearance of violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols and declared your application inadmissible "
↑ Checked despite the standard rejection of the ECHR - violation of the prohibition of torture. Decision No. 478/2011 of the CAT from June 19, 2014 in the sense of Sergei Kirsanov c. Russia. Hrsg: CAT, accessed on April 3, 2019 (complaint was rejected by the ECHR with a serial letter): "RZ 10.2: the European Court rejected it with the statement that it contained no violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the European Convention or its protocols. The Committee therefore concludes that the European Court has not examined the same matter. "
↑ Decision No. 577/2013 of the CAT iS NB c. Russia for torture. Retrieved April 3, 2019 .
↑ General comments. General remarks. Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).
↑ General Comments of the UN Human Rights Committee. In: General Comments of the CAT. Published by Humanrights.ch , accessed on April 3, 2019 .
↑ GC No. 1 (1997): Implementation of Art. 3 FoK (refoulement ban). In: General comments. Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).
↑ GC No. 2 Implementation of Art. 2 FoK Prevention of Torture. In: General comments. Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).
↑ GC No. 3 Implementation of Art. 14 FoK reparation. In: General comments. Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).
↑ GC No. 4 (2017) Implementation of Art. 3 FoK (refoulement ban). In: General comments. Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).
^ Statistics of the committee . Retrieved June 8, 2017.
↑ CAT Jurisprudence
↑ DIMR: CAT - Decision No. 430/2010 iS Onsi Abichou c. Germany. (pdf) In: German Institute for Human Rights . Ed: CAT , accessed April 3, 2019 .
↑ ^a ^b ^c CAT - Decision No. 430/2010 iS Onsi Abichou c. Germany. In: UNHCHR . Ed: CAT , accessed April 3, 2019 .
↑ Diplomatic assurances endanger the non-refoulement principle. Onis Abichou. In: Case law of the CAT. Published by Humanrights.ch , accessed on April 3, 2019 .
↑ RZ 2.11 on August 20, 2010, Mr. Abichou submitted a request for interim measures 6 to the European Court of Human Rights pursuant to rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The application was rejected by the Court on August 23, 2010, with no reason for the rejection being given.
↑ RZ 4.3 consequently, on 23 August 2010, Mr. Abichou submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights (Application No. 33841/10) under articles 3 and 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [European Convention on Human Rights] and under Protocol No. 7 of that same Convention, although it has not been ratified by the State party. In the same application, Mr. Abichou also submitted a request for interim measures under rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The Court rejected his request, however.

[CAT_Bezeichnung-1] In addition to Russian, the abbreviation CAT is used in all other official languages of the committee, including Arabic and Chinese, and also by the German Foreign Office

[2] On June 26th, 1987 the contract came into force, see Art. 27 para. 1 FoK. The first election took place after 6 months, Art. 17 Para. 4 FoK

[3] Human Rights Bodies. UN human rights organs. Published by: UN High Commissioner for Human Rights , UNHCHR, accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

[Core_Instruments-4] The Core International Human Rights Instruments and their monitoring bodies. Published by UNHCHR, accessed April 3, 2019 .

[LILEX_CAT-5] ↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In: Liechtenstein Collection of Laws . Retrieved April 3, 2019 .

[Ratifikationsstand_CAT-6] ↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Ratification status of the FoK - Status of treaties. In: Treaty collection of the UN . Retrieved April 3, 2019 .

[UN_Charta-7] Charter of the United Nations. In: Liechtenstein Collection of Laws. Retrieved April 3, 2019 .

[8] UN Committee Against Torture. In: UN: Human rights organs. Published by Humanrights.ch , accessed on April 3, 2019 .

[9] Committee against Torture. In: CAT institutions. Published by Praetor Intermedia UG , accessed on April 3, 2019 .

[CAT_Membership-10] Membership of the CAT. Members of the CAT. Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

[CAT_Intro-11] Monitoring the prevention of torture. Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

[12] Optional protocol to the UN Convention against Torture. In: Liechtenstein Collection of Laws. Retrieved April 3, 2019 .

[CAT_WorkingMethods-13] Working methods. How the CAT works. Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

[14] The state is only obliged under international law to comply with the treaty after ratification. In Germany, the dualistic system applies, in which the contract must first be transformed into national law before it becomes justiciable. In Lichtenstein, Austria and Switzerland the monistic system applies, according to which the treaty becomes applicable immediately upon ratification.

[15] According to Art. 2 VVK, a "reservation" is a unilateral declaration made by a state when it joins a treaty, through which the state aims to exclude or change the legal effect of individual contractual provisions in this state

[UNHCHR_inquiries-16] Inquiries. Investigation procedure for systemic breaches of contract. In: Human Rights Bodies. Published by UNHCHR , accessed April 3, 2019 .

[CAT_Inquiry_procedure-17] Inquiry Procedure. Confidential inquiries under article 20 of the Convention. In: Human Rights Bodies . Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

[Completed_inquiries-18] Completed inquiries and related documentation by State party. Reports under article 20. Ed .: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 .

[Inter-State_Complaints-19] Inter-State Complaints. State complaints. In: Human Rights Bodies. Published by UNHCHR, accessed April 3, 2019 .

[UNHCHR_Procedure_for_complaints-20] Procedure for complaints by individuals under the human rights treaties. Complaints procedure. In: Human Rights Bodies. Published by UNHCHR, accessed April 3, 2019 .

[UNHCHR_IndividualCommunications-21] The admissibility of the complaint. The admissibility of individual complaints. In: Human Rights Bodies. Published by UNHCHR, accessed April 3, 2019 .

[CAT_IndividualCommunications-22] Procedures of the individual committees. In: Human Rights Bodies . Ed: CAT , accessed on April 3, 2019 (English).

[23] Human rights treaty . Published by: German Institute for Human Rights , accessed on April 3, 2019 .

[Erklärung_3452-24] 3452 (xxx) Declaration on the protection of all persons from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. (pdf) Draft Anti-Torture Convention. Published by: UN German Translation Service , December 9, 1975, accessed on April 3, 2019 .

[25] Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. UN Res. A / RES / 39/46 FoK. Published by: UN General Assembly , December 10, 1984, accessed on April 3, 2019 .