The conference in context: Article 14 and the right to rehabilitation The right to rehabilitation for torture victims is included as a means of redress and reparation guaranteed by Article 14 of the Convention against Torture (UNCAT). One of the key issues for the right to rehabilitation is the identification of the role of the state in its obligations to ensure access and funding for rehabilitation services. The General Comment on Article 14, which was published by the Committee against Torture in December 2012, clarifies the obligations of State Parties, in relation to redress, compensation and rehabilitation for torture victims. While the Committee has provided its expert opinion on the extent of the legal obligations contained in the Convention, the IRCT encourages further discussion on the practical implications of implementing the health component of the right to rehabilitation in line with the legal obligations laid out in the General Comment. The IRCT regards the General Comment as a significant step towards recognising the obligation for states to provide the means for “as full rehabilitation as possible”, and confirming that rehabilitation must be holistic, which takes into account the strength and resilience of the victim. The General Comment makes clear that the obligations on State Parties refer to the need to restore and repair the harm suffered by the victim and their dependents, recognising that the victim’s life may never be fully recovered and that the obligation does not depend on the available resources of the state. However, the IRCT also recognises that the reality is that rehabilitation services are not readily available in all countries. Additionally, many governments lack specific programmes or health budget lines to provide or ensure the provision of rehabilitation services to torture victims. Therefore, the conference was intended to encourage further discussion and collaboration between key stakeholders from government, civil society, survivors’ groups, academia and donor organisations on how rehabilitation for torture victims can be effectively delivered and can contribute to the fight against torture, using the General Comment as a framework. A legal perspective on General Comment No. 3 Dr Lutz Oette, REDRESS, UK Dr Lutz Oette opened this session with an introduction on the scope of the right to rehabilitation as reflected in General Comment No. 3 and within the 2 International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims context of the right to reparation as established by Article 14 of UNCAT and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). He highlighted that the General Comment is an important step in developing the legal concept of the right to rehabilitation, particularly as the right to rehabilitation, as part of reparation, has to some extent been neglected. The neglect is, in part, due to the dichotomy between the legal and medical understanding of what constitutes rehabilitation. For the first time, a treaty body has developed the legal concept of the right to rehabilitation with input from non-governmental organisations, including the IRCT. In particular, the General Comment clarifies that rehabilitation should take a holistic approach with the ultimate goal to enable the victim to be self-sufficient, independent and able to function as part of society. Significantly, the scope of the intended beneficiaries (rights-holders) of Article 14 is widened to include the family of victims and human rights defenders. The scope is also not limited to the territory concerned; it should be applicable to all victims irrespective of where the torture took place. However, the question remains: how far does the responsibility of the state go? A further key question is: how should the right to rehabilitation be implemented in practice? More research, Dr Oette suggested, is needed into how domestic laws reflect the right to rehabilitation, and how we determine who has access to services. The General Comment suggests a wide range of interdisciplinary measures, with implementation taking a victim-centred approach. However, this needs more discussion, in particular in the context of genderbased violence, refugees and exiles. Dr Oette explained that the means by which rehabilitation is provided — either through direct provision by the state, by private facilities including NGOs or a combination — will have important implications for funding. There is a clear obligation for the state to pay for the provision of services, but what does this mean in practice, and what effect will this have on the independence of services? In addition, how do the obligations placed on a state to pay for rehabilitation relate to its obligation to pay compensation? He suggested that states should provide services alongside direct compensation.