92 United Nations Convention Against Torture and its Optional Protocol CAT contains an explicit savings clause in relation to other treaty provisions prohibiting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.154 58  The prohibition of torture is both an absolute and a non-​derogable right. Both concepts are sometimes confused. Not all absolute rights are at the same time non-​ derogable, and not all non-​derogable rights are at the same time absolute. A human right is considered as absolute if, under normal circumstances, no limitations are permitted, ie the Government is not authorized by a specific limitation clause to balance the individual claim against certain State interests. A human right is considered non-​derogable if States, under exceptional circumstances, are not permitted to derogate from their respective treaty obligations in relation to this right. 59 The absolute prohibition of torture, therefore, means that, under normal circumstances, torture must not be balanced against any other interest, including national security or the protection of human rights of others. All attempts to justify the practice of torture in the ‘war against global terrorism’ in order to extract information from a suspected terrorist for the purpose of, for example, saving the life of innocent civilians who are in danger of being subjected to an imminent terrorist attack (the so-​called ‘ticking bomb’ scenario), clearly violate the absolute prohibition of torture as laid down in Article 2(2) CAT and Article 7 CCPR.155 Accordingly, during the consideration of the US report in May 2006, the Committee urged the US Government to ensure that any interrogation rules, instructions, or methods ‘do not derogate from the principle of absolute prohibition of torture’.156 Similarly, Israel has been repeatedly criticized for undermining the absolute prohibition of torture by having authorized ‘moderate physical pressure’ against suspected terrorists.157 3.4 The Non-​Derogable Nature of the Prohibition of Torture 60  Article 2(2) stipulates that torture can never be justified, even in the most exceptional circumstances.158 It was primarily meant to stress the non-​derogable nature of the prohibition of torture, ie the rule that even under exceptional circumstances, such as war, terrorism, or natural disasters, States parties are not permitted to derogate from their obligation to respect and ensure the absolute prohibition of torture. Apart from the successful attempt of the United States to delete cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment from this   See below Art 16, 3.8.   For an example of the ‘ticking-​bomb’ scenario, see the judgment against Wolfgang Daschner of 20 December 2004 of the twenty-​seventh penal chamber, Landgericht (court) Frankfurt am Main, NJW 2005 Wolfgang Daschner [2004] NJW 2005, 692; M Nowak, ‘Legal Controversies Relating to Torture’ in Rikke Frank Jørgensen and Klaus Slavenskys (eds), Implementing Human Rights: Essays in Honour of Morten Kjaerum (Institut for Menneskerettigheder 2007) 238; Ralf Poscher, ‘Menschenwürde und Staatsnotstand’ in Wolfgang Lenzen (ed), Ist Folter erlaubt? (Mentis 2006) 47–​65; APT, Defusing the Ticking Bomb Scenario: Why We Must Say No To Torture, Always (APT 2007); Vittorio Bufacchi and Jean Maria Arrigo, ‘Torture, Terrorism and the State:  a Refutation of the Ticking-​Bomb Argument’ (2006) 23 JAP 355; Alan Dershowitz, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge (Yale University Press 2002); Henry Shue ‘Torture in Dreamland: Disposing of the Ticking Bomb’ (2006) Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 231. 156   See CAT/​C/​USA/​CO/​2 (n 148) para  24. 157   See eg A/​49/​44, paras 167ff; CAT/​C/​SR.295; CAT/​C/​SR.339. See also Ingelse (n 28) 265ff. For the practice of the Committee in the State reporting procedure see above 3.1. 158   Of all the drafts, art 6 IAPL expressed this meaning in the strongest terms: ‘Torture can in no circumstances be justified or excused by a state or threat of war or armed conflict, a state of siege, emergency or other exceptional circumstances, or by any necessity or any urgency of obtaining information, or by any other reason.’ 154 155 Zach