Part I: Prohibition of torture: The legal background • it emphasizes the need for appropriate punishment, taking into account the gravity of the offence • enhances the ability of responsible officials to monitor the specific crime of torture. The Committee against Torture requires that States parties use, as a minimum, the definition of torture included in article 1 of the Convention. 1.3.6. Universal jurisdiction The Convention obliges each State party to establish its jurisdiction over the crime of torture, irrespective of whether the crime was committed outside its borders and regardless of the alleged perpetrator’s nationality, country of residence or absence of any other relationship with the country (articles 5–9). If the State is unable to prosecute the offence, it is required to extradite the alleged perpetrator to a State which is able and willing to prosecute such a crime. This principle of universal jurisdiction constitutes one of the most important aspects of the Convention that is more often applied.43 Where torture is part of a widespread or systematic attack, or takes place in an armed conflict, those responsible for torture might also be tried by the International Criminal Court, as torture is regarded as a crime against humanity and a war crime. However, many more States have ratified the Convention against Torture, which covers all acts of torture and creates the obligation to exercise universal jurisdiction. 1.3.7. Training officials Article 10 of the Convention requires States parties to take steps to ensure that all law enforcement personnel, medical personnel, public officials, and others involved in the deprivation of liberty receive education and information on the prohibition and prevention of torture. The Committee against Torture has stressed that this obligation includes the need for states to provide specialised training on gender-specific issues such as sexual violence against women and on the rights of LGBTI persons.44 1.3.8. Review of detention procedures Under article 11 of the Convention, States parties are required to keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices, as well as custody procedures. These should comply with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules), the United Nations Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and other relevant international standards, e.g. the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (Bangkok Rules). The new Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering also propose guidance to policy makers on implementing Article 11 to replace interrogation, often coercive and confession driven, by rapport based interviewing.45 States should put in place specific measures to protect women and LGBTI persons deprived of their liberty, given their heightened risk of torture and ill-treatment and distinct needs in detention. Such rules are not considered discriminatory. 43 See the decision of the Committee against Torture dealing with the trial of Hissène Habré in Senegal (Suleymane Guengueng and others v. Senegal, Committee against Torture, Communication 181/2001, views adopted on 17 May 2006). 44 In its, the Committee against Torture, General comment No. 3 (para 24). See also the Committee’s concluding observations, e.g. on Greece (CAT/C/GRC/CO/7). 45 Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering, APT, May 2021 31