landmark jurisprudence, but also the International Court of Justice paved the way with its reasoning in the LaGrand case in 2001,4 and it has since been followed by other international or regional bodies. As we can see, the good faith of states is still the basis for the efficiency of interim measures, like it is for the efficiency of the decisions of international enforcement bodies in general. In the last year, we have seen positive developments in international jurisprudence regarding the diversity of the interim measures ordered to protect the litigants. NGOs like REDRESS, ACAT, or OMCT assisting victims have widely contributed to these developments. The [Inter-American] Court of Human Rights has been at the forefront on the issue and a source of inspiration for other international enforcement bodies. But, as Carla Ferstman will certainly explain more deeply in her presentation, much more could or should be done to provide the best protection to victims, or potential victims of torture, through interim measures. Despite this encouraging evolution of the international jurisprudence, the legal status of interim measures is still uncertain. As Diego Rodríguez-Pinzón will address in his presentation, some states have proven quite willing to respect interim measures, but still, in too many cases, we have seen states breaching orders and consequently, victims suffering irreparable harm. Some of them have been executed, some have been extradited to a country where they have been ill-treated or tortured, and some have been threatened, attacked, or even killed in that country because of petitions that failed in front of an international body. Remarks of Carla Ferstman* Introduction T oday is extremely important, not only because it will explain and explore the importance of the UN Committee against Torture in the overall fight against impunity for torture. But also, it will touch on some very practical measures and hopefully this will help all of us in our respective areas of work to improve the situation of survivors of torture and those who face a risk of torture in their dealings with these types of bodies. At REDRESS,5 which is an organization based in the United Kingdom, we work with survivors of torture in all parts of the world and have taken cases before most regional human rights courts as well as many treaty bodies. When it comes to working with survivors of torture and considering what motivates them to bring a case before a regional or international human rights body, first and foremost what they are seeking is some form of acknowledgement of the harm suffered by an independent and impartial body that can draw attention to what they have experienced. Justice is not only, or not mostly, about any kind of revenge against a particular perpetrator or a state. It is really about trying to restore what the victim has lost, which is their dignity through the absence of rights in the context of torture. This is in a way the overlaying issue for many torture survivors that we need to consider. Victims invariably face a range of problems when filing claims before international bodies. Certainly they face these problems when they file claims at the domestic level as well. Therefore, we should keep that in perspective. They face threats of physical violence to them and their families; sometimes these threats are carried out. They face further risk of detention; they face new or false claims or civil proceedings brought against them as some kind of punishment. Victims are sometimes forced to withdraw their claims as a result of pressure or extortion that they face. When it comes to the issue of protection, one of the biggest challenges for a torture survivor who is undertaking efforts to try to obtain some measure of justice, first at the domestic level and, if that fails, eventually at the international level, is risk of reprisals after already suffering from torture. We can understand why it is so important that the bodies, which are supposed to be there to provide a measure of redress, do not contribute to the problem and end up being a place that, by virtue of the victim seeking some kind of justice, creates a new risk of a reprisal. In 2007, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe made a very important statement in relation to the practice of forcing victims to withdraw their complaints in mostly, but not exclusively, applicants from the North Caucasus * Carla Ferstman is the Director of REDRESS (www.redress.org). 10