A/76/168 B. Obstruction 52. One of the most significant challenges in respect of accountability for torture and ill-treatment is the deliberate and/or systematic obstruction of accountability processes. 48 Obstructions operate on various levels. They may arise on a systemic level, and include legal and structural barriers to accountability. In many States, acts of torture or ill-treatment are subject to statutes of limitations, contrary to the absolute character of the prohibition and the Committee against Tortu re’s jurisprudence, 49 and in contradiction of the obligation to investigate, prosecute and sanction acts of torture and other ill-treatment. 50 Statutes of limitation can be particularly challenging for victims of torture and ill-treatment, as they may face trauma, symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder such as avoidance and dissociation, or stigmatization and marginalization, all of which can hinder their timely engagement with the legal process. Furthermore, some legal systems provide for immunities fr om prosecution for law enforcement officials involved in acts of torture and ill-treatment, under justifications such as national security. 51 53. Disturbingly, a growing number of States seem prepared to restrict accountability for torture and ill-treatment by adopting such measures, which operate in effect as a licence to torture and ill-treat in complete impunity. Examples of such initiatives include the Overseas Operations Act of the United Kingdom, a previous version of which risked creating a de facto statute of limitations for the prosecution of torture and ill-treatment. The final version of the Act eventually excluded torture and other international crimes from the scope of the law, but it is evident that such attempts to circumvent the absolute prohibition embolden other States to question long-held assumptions about the absolute character of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. For instance, in the Sudan, immunities are granted to a range of security actors, including the police, army and intelligence services in respect of all acts “related to official business”, and the decision to waive immunities lies with the director of each body, without judicial review. The transitional Government of the Sudan has eliminated some immunities through recent legislative amendments, but most accountability efforts remain stymied by a failure to enforce the amendments, as well as other existing immunities. 52 More broadly, immunities also pose challenges to prosecution of and redress for “overseas” torture under the principle of universal jurisdiction. 53 54. Obstructions also consist of targeted action aimed at hindering particular investigations and avoiding accountability. The Special Rapporteur has received extensive indications over the course of his mandate, and in response to the questionnaire, of victims of torture and ill-treatment often being ignored or being denied access to vital evidence, including their own medical reports, and of other deliberate interference with procedures aimed at revealing State wrongdoing and bringing relevant actors to account. Furthermore, the obstruction of accountability for torture and ill-treatment is often undertaken by disempowering those pursuing __________________ 48 49 50 51 52 53 21-09914 Ruth Blakeley and Sam Raphael, “Accountability, denial and the future -proofing of British torture”, International Affairs, vol. 96, No. 3 (May 2020), p. 691. See, for example, CAT/C/ESP/CO/6, para. 9; CAT/C/GTM/CO/5-6, para. 8; and CAT/C/UZB/CO/5, para. 25. Committee against Torture, Sonko v. Spain, Communication No. 368/2008 (CAT/C/47/D/368/2008), para. 10.6. See, for example, CAT/C/COD/CO/2, para. 22. REDRESS, “Sudan: human rights two years after Al-Bashir’s removal” (2021). Mark Gibney and Erik Roxström, “What a pity! Sovereign immunity, State responsibility, and the diminution of accountability under international human rights law”, Journal of Human Rights, vol. 11, No. 4 (2012), pp. 443–459. 17/23