Torture and International Law: The Absolute Ban and the Reality of the 21st Century

Torture is the intentional infliction of severe physical or psychological pain on a person, most often by or with the consent of state actors. It is used to extract confessions, punish, intimidate, or discriminate. In international law, torture is recognized as one of the gravest violations of human rights — one that is prohibited under all circumstances, including war, terrorism, or states of emergency.

The definition adopted in the United Nations Convention against Torture (1984) emphasizes that violence qualifies as “torture” only when it involves state participation — this distinguishes it from private acts of violence. A defining feature is the deliberate and systematic nature of the inflicted suffering.

 

 

International Standards

The prohibition of torture is universal and absolute. It is enshrined in several key international instruments:

• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 5;

• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), Article 7;

• The United Nations Convention against Torture (1984);

• The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 3;

• The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court classifies torture as a crime against humanity.

Alongside slavery and genocide, torture is classified as an international crime subject to jus cogens norms — meaning no derogation is permitted under any circumstances.

 

 

Monitoring Mechanisms and International Accountability

Several international mechanisms oversee compliance with the prohibition of torture:

• The UN Committee against Torture (CAT) reviews state reports, considers individual complaints, and conducts inquiries;

• The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture monitors conditions and carries out country visits;

• The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) conducts regular visits to detention facilities in Council of Europe member states;

• The Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (2002) establishes National Preventive Mechanisms — independent domestic bodies tasked with monitoring.

Violations of the prohibition may result in international liability, including reputational damage, sanctions, and even criminal prosecution of individuals.

 

 

Why Torture Persists Despite the Ban

Despite the absolute nature of the international ban, torture continues to be practiced across the globe. In many countries, anti-torture provisions are enshrined in national constitutions, and relevant international treaties have been ratified — yet the gap between legal norms and real-world practices remains stark. The reasons are multifaceted, ranging from lack of political will to weaknesses in the judicial system and a deeply rooted culture of impunity within security agencies.

Contemporary challenges in the fight against torture point less to legal shortcomings and more to deficits in enforcement, transparency, and accountability. The key barriers to eradicating torture are discussed below.

 

 

Impunity: The System Protects Its Own

One of the primary reasons torture persists is the lack of accountability for perpetrators. Complaints of torture are often ignored or subjected to superficial investigations. Prosecuting bodies are frequently institutionally and hierarchically linked to those accused.

A common scenario: a victim files a complaint, and the prosecutor declines to open a case, citing "insufficient evidence of a crime." Even when signs of abuse are present, charges may be downgraded to “exceeding authority” or dismissed altogether. This fosters a culture of impunity, where security personnel feel shielded from the law.

 

 

Denial and Euphemisms: Manipulating Language

Governments often conceal the use of torture through euphemistic or formal language. Common terms like “enhanced interrogation techniques,” “psychological pressure,” or “behavioral control” may involve beatings, isolation, sleep deprivation, and other forms of cruel treatment.

Such obfuscations are seen even in states with strong legal frameworks. For instance, after the 9/11 attacks, the United States used secret CIA facilities to detain and interrogate suspects with methods the international community widely recognized as torture. U.S. authorities, however, long referred to these as “legitimate interrogation tactics.”

 

 

Lack of Access to Justice for Victims

Victims of torture rarely obtain justice — particularly in closed institutions such as prisons, pre-trial detention centers, psychiatric hospitals, and immigration detention facilities. These places are often beyond the reach of public scrutiny and inaccessible to lawyers, human rights monitors, and international observers.

Victims lack access to effective legal counsel, fear retaliation, and complaints are frequently “lost” within the system. In many countries, there are no independent bodies capable of investigating and holding perpetrators accountable without interference.

 

The Use of Torture in Counterterrorism

In the context of terrorism, many states are tempted to justify violence as serving “higher purposes.” After 2001, several countries expanded the powers of security agencies, enabling — or overlooking — the use of torture. The most infamous example is the CIA’s secret detention sites and the “extraordinary rendition” program, where terror suspects were covertly transported and subjected to harsh interrogations.

Although the U.S. Senate later acknowledged that these practices violated both domestic and international law, the precedent had been set. In some countries, this approach remains a model — a way to circumvent legal limits under the guise of “national security.”

 

Vulnerable Groups at Particular Risk

Torture and ill-treatment disproportionately affect vulnerable groups: migrants, ethnic and religious minorities, persons with disabilities, LGBTQ+ individuals, detainees, and arrestees. These groups often lack social protection, face stigma, and exist in legal limbo.

For example, in immigration detention centers in many countries, conditions amounting to cruel or degrading treatment are frequently reported. In some police stations, there have been documented cases of sexual violence against transgender persons or ethnic minorities, with prosecutors failing to respond.

 

Today’s challenges in the fight against torture reveal a stark reality: legal norms often outpace actual implementation. Even in countries with formally strong legal protections, torture can remain a hidden and tolerated practice.

Legal standards are effective only when accompanied by:

• An independent judiciary;

• Genuine political will to investigate and prosecute;

• A vibrant civil society;

• An active press and robust international oversight.

The prohibition of torture is not just a legal requirement — it is a measure of a state’s maturity and integrity. Torture undermines trust in institutions, leads to false convictions, poisons civic life, and threatens the safety of all.

International norms serve as a guide for human rights advocates, lawyers, journalists, and citizens — all of whom have the right and responsibility to demand accountability.

As long as torture persists, we must speak about it — clearly, publicly, and with legal precision. Because silence, too, is a form of complicity.

 

Read more articles on this topic: