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

Select target paragraph3