On 26 June 1987, the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (uncat) entered into force. The comprehensive set of regulations of the Convention aimed at ensuring a more effective implementation of the international community’s common endeavours to eradicate torture globally. Nevertheless, torture practice still prevails in many countries. New crises, such as the international fight against terrorism, constantly compromise the achievement of the Convention’s overall objective; in particular, they present a great challenge to States Parties’ compliance with the uncat’s explicit nonrefoulement obligation of Art. 3 uncat. Aiming for the transfer of a person to another State and in a bid to nevertheless satisfy their international obligations, States Parties tend to rely on so-called diplomatic assurances from the receiving State, thereby potentially exposing the individual to the risk of being subjected to torture following the transfer.
Being aware of the new challenges to the protection of Art. 3 uncat, in 2015, the United Nations Committee against Torture finally decided to undertake a comprehensive review of its General Comment No. 1 (1997). As the text of 1997 was considered to no longer meet the needs of the States with respect to the new challenges of the 21st century, the revision was inter alia aimed to also explicitly address the alarming trend of the application of diplomatic assurances and to include an assessment of their legitimate use in the context of Art. 3 uncat. This article outlines the aforementioned review process with regard to the use of diplomatic assurances in the context of torture and analyses the question of their legitimacy under international law with respect to the uncat and in light of and in comparison to the European Court of Human Right’s jurisdiction in this context.
Elusive Legal Definition of Terrorism at the United Nations
