A/76/168
I. Introduction
1.
The prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment is universally recognized as absolute and non-derogable. Since the end
of the Second World War, States have made unprecedented efforts towards
establishing domestic and international normative and institutional frameworks for
its practical implementation. Nevertheless, today torture and ill-treatment continue to
be practised with almost complete impunity throughout the world, and victims of such
abuse or their relatives rarely obtain the redress, reparation and rehabilitation to which
they are entitled under international law. 1
2.
The aim of securing accountability for torture and ill-treatment has been a
critical motivation in the development of legal standards and institutional
mechanisms for the effective implementation of the prohibition of torture and ill treatment. In these efforts, accountability for torture and ill-treatment has been tied
not only to punishment, redress and reparation, but also more broadly to ensuring
justice, reconciliation and the rule of law, and preventing future violations.
Furthermore, accountable institutions are intrinsically linked to the achievement of
Sustainable Development Goal 16, aimed at creating transparent and inclusive
societies where justice is accessible to all. Nonetheless, normative, institutional and
procedural shortcomings, as well as systematic denial, deliberate obstruction and
purposeful evasion of accountability, remain widespread globally and, in conjunction,
maintain a structural “accountability gap” of systemic proportions.
3.
In the vast majority of cases, those responsible fo r perpetrating, instigating, or
consenting or acquiescing to torture or ill-treatment – whether States, their officials
and agents, organizations, corporations or private individuals – are not being held to
account. This creates a culture of impunity which severely undermines the
effectiveness and credibility of States’ international commitments towards eradicating
torture and ill-treatment. It also compounds the pain and suffering inflicted by torture
and ill-treatment by proliferating and prolonging the trauma and injustice endured by
individual victims and wider communities.
4.
In the light of these sobering observations, and in line with the encouragement
by the Human Rights Council to observe a victim-centred approach in the exercise of
the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment, 2 the present report examines questions relating to
accountability for torture and ill-treatment. To inform work on the report, the Special
Rapporteur conducted broad consultations with experts, States and other
stakeholders, including through the circulation of a questionnaire. For the purposes
of the report, accountability is understood in a broad sense:
(a) As referring to processes, mechanisms and other cir cumstances in which
relevant stakeholders are called upon to account for their acts or omissions in respect
of torture or ill-treatment and to face consequences and make amends for any
violations, and through which victims of such abuse can obtain appropri ate
reparation, including redress and rehabilitation;
(b) As being not only reactive but also proactive, and not only corrective but
also restorative;
(c) As taking many forms, from legal accountability to political and public
forms of accountability, including the recognition that torture or ill-treatment
__________________
1
2
21-09914
A/73/207, para. 58.
Human Rights Council resolution 43/20.
3/23