A/73/207 its infliction must be regarded as proportionate in view of the gravity of the harm to be prevented by saving many lives. However, even if torture did work in such exceptional circumstances, it would still not be permissible under international law. While arguments of necessity, proportionality and lawful purpose may govern the permissibility of interference with qualified human rights, such as freedom of expression and, in extremis, even the right to life, they are legally incapable of justifying violations that are absolutely prohibited, such as torture, slavery and genocide. Fifth, from a global governance perspective, it must be stressed that abhorrent practices such as torture, slavery and genocide have been absolutely prohibited as a matter of universal jus cogens not because they never “work” in practice but because all of them irreparably destroy the humanity and integrity of the victims, the perpetrators and, ultimately, society as a whole. As this mandate stated shortly after the attacks of 11 September 2001, calling into question the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment in the context of counter-terrorism amounts to “signalling to the terrorists that the values espoused by the international community are hollow and no more valid than the travesties of principle defended by the terrorists” (E/CN.4/2002/76). 49. In view of this fundamental challenge to the prohibition of torture and ill treatment today, the Special Rapporteur appeals to States to remember that article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a reaction to the abhorrent policies and practices of the Second World War. It is profoundly shocking to contemplate that, as the last generations of survivors of that conflict disappear, so could the incontrovertible lessons drawn from the atrocities they witnessed, thus seriously endangering one of the greatest achievements in human history. In the view of the Special Rapporteur, to question the absolute character of the prohibiti on of torture and ill-treatment is not a legitimate enquiry of law or policy, but amounts to a short sighted, self-destructive and irresponsible attack on the very foundations of the post war new world order based on peace, justice and human dignity. Curre nt world leaders bear the historical responsibility for how they choose to react to this fundamental challenge. D. 1. Impunity State responsibility 50. In recent years, States have increasingly tended to avoid their international obligations by “delegating” the practice of torture and ill-treatment to other States or non-State actors or by knowingly tolerating or even benefiting from such practices by other States or non-State actors. (a) Outsourcing 51. Many States increasingly outsource part of their traditional public services to private contractors, including military, intelligence and law enforcement functions. Outsourced activities can include, for example, the protection of specific persons, objects and infrastructure, the policing of assemblies, the transport and interrogation of suspects, and the management of facilities for migrants, of institutions for institutionalized care, and even of prisons and penitentiaries. Particularly where detention facilities are understaffed and under-resourced, there also has been a trend towards the de facto “delegation” of internal prison management to dominant groups of inmates. 52. This development generally has not been accompanied by sufficiently strong national regulation, oversight and accountability structures to control and enforce the compliance of corporate actors and other private contractors with human rights, thus 14/23 18-12051