Article 2. Obligation to Prevent Torture 91 abroad’.145 Also the position previously taken by the US, that Article 2 was geographically limited to US territory in the strict sense,146 excluding detainees at Guantánamo Bay from international scrutiny, was not only clearly rejected by the five independent experts of the UN Commission on Human Rights,147 but also by the CAT Committee.148 The US in the meantime has reviewed its position concerning extraterritorial application of the Convention and specifically acknowledged that it applies to Guantanamo Bay, as well as US registered ships and aircraft.149 3.3 The Absolute Nature of the Prohibition of Torture 57  The prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is one of the few absolute human rights. Both torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment are prohibited, without any exception, in Article 7 CCPR and similar provisions in regional human rights treaties. This absolute prohibition is also regarded as customary international law and even ius cogens.150 Furthermore, Article 4(2) CCPR provides that even in times of public emergency threatening the life of the nation, no derogation from the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment may be made. Consequently, Article 3 of the 1975 Declaration and Article 2(2) of the original Swedish draft provided that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In written comments, the delegation of the United States in 1979 proposed a new article providing that there is no justification for an act of torture. The United States argued, however, that cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment was a relative term and what might constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in times of peace ‘might not rise to that level during emergency situations’.151 Although the Holy See had welcomed the broader text of the Swedish draft ‘in light of certain schools of thought which seek to give national security priority over the rights of the person’,152 the US position seemed to have been accepted by the drafters without much opposition. The revised Swedish draft on which the final text of Article 2(2) CAT is based no longer contained any reference to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, which means that there is no explicit provision in the Convention that prohibits any derogation from the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. However, since the Preamble of the Convention clearly refers to the existing standards under the CCPR and the 1975 Declaration and affirms the desire of the drafters to make more effective (and not less effective) the struggle against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, one should not give too much weight to this retrogressive provision. The Committee has in the meantime also confirmed that the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is non-​derogable.153 In addition, Article 16(2) 145   CAT, ‘Concluding Observations on the Fifth Periodic Report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, adopted by the Committee at its Fiftieth Session (6–​31 May 2013)’, 24 June 2013, UN Doc CAT/​C/​GBR/​CO/​5, para 9. Also see CAT/​C/​CR/​33/​3, para  4(b). 146   See US report in accordance with Art 19 CAT of 13 January 2006, CAT/​C/​48/​Add.3/​Rev.1. 147   See E/​CN.4/​2006/​120, para  11. 148  CAT, ‘Concluding Observations:  United States of America’ (2006) UN Doc CAT/​C/​USA/​CO/​2, para 15. 149   CAT, ‘Concluding Observations:  United States of America’ (2014) UN Doc CAT/​C/​USA/​CO/​3-​5, para 10. 150 151   See eg Nowak, CCPR Commentary (n 31) 157ff.   E/​CN.4/​1314 (n 6) (1979), para 53. 152 153   E/​CN.4/​1314/​Add.3 (n 16) para  6.   See CAT/​C/​GC/​2  (n  1). Zach