impacts a variety of other rights enshrined in the Convention, including the obligation to afford a remedy. it in terms of harm to the case? Because certainly one of the roles of interim measures is to safeguard the situation so that the litigation can proceed. So, in terms of how we look at the issue of irreparable harm, does the fact that a victim has been threatened, which may force her to withdraw a particular case, amount to sufficient harm although not physical harm? What are the types of measures that states have at the domestic level? As I have already indicated in my introduction, most states that do have protection legislation, as well as protection structures, have developed these systems in the context of criminal law and particularly organized crime. At the international level, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime has spearheaded efforts to encourage states around the world to revise their laws and practices to protect victims and witnesses mainly in the context of organized crime. So, at the international level, there has been some movement to encourage states around the world to adopt protection legislation and establish protection units. However, this initiative of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime has focused on the criminal model. Therefore, it is not sufficient or adequate to respond to the needs of protection in a human rights case, with respect to human rights litigants. Moreover, as I previously mentioned, there are a whole range of protective measures within the international criminal realm, both during the trial proceedings as well as measures on the ground to protect victims and witnesses. However for the most part, these too are focused on a prosecution model. Another question is whether interim measures are able to address threats against lawyers and human rights defenders, in addition to the direct victim. In principle, one would think that they should be, though the relevant provisions and regulations are not actually so clear. If we read rule 114 of the UN Committee against Torture’s regulations, the first paragraph: “At any time after the receipt of a complaint, the Committee, a working group, or the Rapporteur(s) on new complaints and interim measures may transmit to the State [P]arty concerned, for its urgent consideration, a request that it take such interim measures as the Committee considers necessary to avoid irreparable damage to the victim or victims of alleged violations.”13 How does one interpret that? Can we possibly say that the threats to the lawyers are part and parcel of irreparable damage to the victim? Certainly that would be an appropriate way in which to look at the matter. However, that interpretation probably goes one step beyond the plain meaning of the text. The Use of Interim Measures Are interim measures able to deal with reprisals after the fact? So, let’s say the UN Committee against Torture issues a decision, and as a result the state concerned is very angry and the individual concerned is re-tortured, possibly even killed. What can the treaty body do in that kind of circumstance? I would suggest that interim measures, because of what exactly they are, would have difficulty to operate after the fact. Therefore, the question is what else needs to be in place to ensure the continued ability of the Committee to have oversight over the protection needs after it has issued a decision. Certainly, as the UN Committee against Torture has itself recognized in its recent General Comment, there is a link between remedy and protection. So the UN Committee against Torture or any treaty body or other international mechanism can, in light of the need to guarantee non-repetition, set out the obligation to ensure continued protection to the victim and others concerned. This could potentially be addressed in relation to the remedial order at the end of the case to the extent that the Committee has continuing supervisory ability at the end of the case, which many bodies do. What about victims who are not criminal witnesses, when they are bringing their own human rights cases? For me, this is the biggest challenge that we face. With respect to this massive gap, one of the areas which we can look at, and which I will discuss now, is the area of interim measures. Hélène [Legeay] has already indicated what interim measures are. Basically they are tools to stop or postpone the execution of a decision or an act that might prejudice the outcome of the proceedings before a final judgment is reached. They can also be positive, requiring a state to take particular action to forestall irreparable harm. There are also instances where an interim measure can be a request or an order to a state to stop negative action. One limitation of the system of interim measures is that they are typically only available for serious and urgent cases. So, we must consider this in light of the variety of needs that torture survivors have with respect to protection and whether they all fit within the context of serious and urgent cases. Most cases fall under these criteria; however it can often be a question of evidence, whether evidence is strong enough to demonstrate the sufficient level of urgency and seriousness. Another concern is the response by the different states to interim measures. This has to do with the overall challenge of enforcing anything that a treaty body or even some of the regional courts recommend or order, as the case may be. I suggest two main issues with respect to the response to interim measures. The first concern is limited capacity. As already indicated, one of the most significant challenges is the limitation of domestic legislation and domestic procedures on the ground to deal with protection concerns. So, if an order or request for interim measures is made to a particular country where the systems and Another question is whether interim measures are able to provide all of the protection needs of torture victims trying to bring a case at an international level. The first issue is how one assesses the definition of avoiding irreparable harm. Will it necessarily be applicable to protection concerns that are perhaps not amounting to death threats or serious bodily injury? How do we define serious irreparable harm? Do we define it in relation to the harm to the victim, or perhaps can we go further and define 12