Preventing Torture An Operational Guide for National Human Rights Institutions - Updated Edition This is a legally binding obligation and, when reporting to the Committee against Torture, States parties are required to explain what steps they have taken to implement this obligation. The Committee requests states to identify the situations where groups are at risk of gendered violations and report on measures taken to prevent them. NHRIs can also refer to this obligation when planning and undertaking activities to prevent torture and ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. 1.3.3. No justification for torture – ever Article 2.2 of the Convention states that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever” can justify torture. This includes war or the threat of war, political instability, combating terrorism or any other emergency. Orders from a superior officer are also not a justification for torture. Law enforcement and detaining officials should receive training that clearly highlights their obligation to refuse such orders. 1.3.4. Non-refoulement Article 3 of the Convention sets out the principle of non-refoulement, which requires States to not expel, return or extradite a person to another State if there are “substantial grounds” for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.40 The principle of non-refoulement is an illustration of the absolute prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. It has been undermined by the practice of some States to seek diplomatic assurances when there are known risks that the person being returned may be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. This practice has been used in the context of the so-called war on terror, with the sending State seeking assurances from the receiving State that the individual in question will not be tortured or subjected to other forms of ill-treatment. This practice is considered to violate the principle of non-refoulement and is not permissible.41 When applying the principle of non-refoulement, states should consider whether a person has or would be subjected to violence, including “gender-based/sexual violence, in public or in private, or gender-based persecution, genital mutilation, amounting to torture” in the receiving state.42 Patterns of widespread gender-based violence are also relevant for determining whether there are “substantial grounds” for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 1.3.5. Specific crime of torture Article 4 of the Convention requires each State party to ensure that torture is included as a specific crime in their national criminal law. Some States argue that this is unnecessary, as acts of torture would already be covered by existing offences in their criminal codes. However, this provision is essential because: • torture is not just a form of violent assault; it is an exercise of power over a victim that does not correspond to any other criminal offence • defining torture as a crime underlines the specific nature and gravity of the offence • making torture a specific offence provides a clear warning to officials that the practice is punishable, thereby providing an important deterrent 30 40 See Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 on the Implementation of Article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, on the principle of non-refoulement. 41 See for example, Committee against Torture, concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (2013) (CAT/C/GBR/CO/5), para. 18. 42 See Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 on the Implementation of Article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, para. 29(c).