PANEL I THE USE OF INTERIM MEASURES BY THE COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE: TOWARDS A COMPREHENSIVE INSTRUMENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF VICTIMS AND WITNESSES IN TORTURE CASES Opening Remarks from Hélène Legeay, Moderator* G ood morning, everyone. I am the Middle East and North Africa Programme Manager at Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (ACAT). ACAT is a French NGO based in Paris. Our main mandate is to fight against torture, the death penalty, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. To present our work in a few words, we provide training for lawyers. I have provided training for lawyers in Tunisia and soon, I hope, in Morocco as well. This training concerns how to document torture cases and how to file complaints before international enforcement bodies. ACAT released an annual report on the phenomenon of torture around the world and we also release some country reports on a regular basis. Among the means for assisting victims, ACAT has filed several petitions before international bodies, mainly before the Committee against Torture (CAT, Committee). For example, Gerald [Staberock] was talking about the petition concerning a man who was detained in Morocco and was supposed to be extradited to Algeria. ACAT filed this complaint and won.1 It was the first complaint against Morocco since Morocco recognized the competence of the CAT to take individual communications in 2006. So, it was the first complaint and we won the case before CAT and Morocco complied with the decision. This was really good news. Also, participating in the first hearing before CAT was my colleague in the Uzbekistan-Kazakhstan case.2 It was the first pleading in CAT and it was successful. I hope we will be able to develop that kind of procedure. bodies to preserve the rights of the parties to a case and to avoid the occurrence of an irreparable harm.3 An order of interim measures may require that the states take positive actions—like providing protection to the victim or access to a doctor—or to refrain from taking action by delaying an execution or an extradition until the case has been resolved by the international body. In torture cases, interim measures appear to be as important or sometimes more important than the consideration of the merits of the case. The interim measures’ aim is to prevent torture in individual cases, to shield potential victims from these actions. In that sense, interim measures are—for the moment—the best tool at the disposal of international bodies to compel states to respect the main purpose of the conventions preventing torture. Reparations, rehabilitation of the victims, and prosecution of torture crimes are important issues that we will also address today. But, we all agree on the idea that the prevention of torture is what we want to achieve. I’m really glad to attend this conference and I’m sure it will give even more ideas on what we can do to collaborate together— NGOs, researchers, and also CAT—to better assist the victims and get protection and reparations for them. Before introducing the first panel, I want to thank the Washington College of Law and OMCT (World Organisation Against Torture) for organizing this conference and for inviting me to moderate this panel, which is important for me and for ACAT as we have tried—sometimes successfully, sometimes not—to protect victims by asking CAT for interim measures orders. As protective measures, interim measures are valuable tools as long as they are, first, adapted to the situation—to the threat— and, second, as long as they are efficient. Interim measures—or what are called provisional or precautionary measures—are ordered by international human rights Although previously considered as merely recommendations by international bodies and their member states, interim measures have progressively gained binding authority, not only through * Hélène Legeay is the Middle East and North Africa Programme Manager at Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (ACAT). 9