Introduction 9 The international monitoring of States’ compliance with their obligations under the Convention follows that of other UN human rights treaties: the establishment of an independent treaty monitoring body, the Committee against Torture consisting of ten independent experts from different fields of expertise, with a mandate to examine mandatory State reports (Article 19) and optional inter-​State (Article 21) and individual complaints (Article 22). The only innovative provision was the introduction of an ex officio inquiry procedure by the Committee in case it ‘receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-​founded indications that torture is being systematically practised’ (Article 20). This procedure is not dependent on any complaints and may lead to a fact finding investigation on the spot. However, during the drafting of the Convention this potentially strong procedure has been considerably watered down. States parties may ‘opt out’ of the procedure by a reservation in accordance with Article 28, the entire procedure is highly confidential, and any fact-​finding visits to the territory of the country concerned are dependent on an explicit agreement by the respective Government. Nevertheless, the Committee so far has completed ten inquiries in relation to Turkey, Egypt, Peru, Sri Lanka, Mexico, Serbia and Montenegro, Brazil, Nepal, Lebanon, and, again, Egypt.45 Finally, with respect to States parties to the OP, the Subcommittee on Prevention (SPT) has the mandate to carry out preventive missions and unannounced visits to all places of detention, to conduct private interviews with all detainees, to assist the respective national preventive mechanisms and to make recommendations to the States parties concerned (Articles 11–​16 OP). More than thirty years after the entry into force of the CAT 162 States have ratified the main treaty to fight torture and other forms of ill-​treatment. However, despite the broad ratification and the universal recognition of the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-​treatment we witness a ‘global crisis’46 affecting the majority of countries worldwide. At the end of his six-​year term as UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak concluded that torture exists in roughly 90% of all States, that it constitutes a routine phenomenon of police behaviour in more than half of all States, and that it is systematically practised in some 10% of all States. In addition, he identified a global prison crisis as the conditions of detention in most States of the world amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.47 The lack of implementation of the CAT obligations is due to dysfunctional criminal justice systems, corruption and insufficient capacities of state authorities, as well as a lack of political will to fight this horrible practice. In recent years the protection of human rights is experiencing a particularly serious crisis—​also affecting the phenomenon of torture—​in which official narratives and public belief often trivialize and even endorse such practices in the name of security and the fight against terrorism, ignoring the suffering and damages it causes. On the other hand, the positive experiences in some States illustrate that torture can be eradicated if the provisions of CAT and OPCAT are taken seriously and are being fully implemented.   See below Art 20, § 37.   See the last global campaign against torture by AI, ‘Torture: A Global Crisis’ <https://​www.amnesty.org/​ en/​get-​involved/​stop-​torture/​> accessed 1 June 2017. 47   See UNSRT (Nowak) ‘Study on the Phenomena of Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in the World, including an Assessment of Conditions of Detention’ (2010) UN Doc A/​ HRC/​13/​39/​Add.5; Manfred Nowak, Torture: An Expert’s Confrontation with an Everyday Evil (University of Pennsylvania Press 2018). 45 46