Members of the Committee have emphasised that the right to compensation and redress is given not only to a person who has the nationality of the State from which compensation and redress are sought or who is resident in that State. Non-residents and non-nationals are also entitled to compensation and redress after being subjected to torture.207 Members of the CAT have considered it a matter of concern when a person responsible for torture was only ordered to compensate the victim after criminal liability had been established. A civil procedure should also be available, regardless of the outcome of any criminal procedure.208 It is unlikely that Article 14 imposes an obligation on States to facilitate jurisdiction over civil claims for compensation in third States. The wording of Article 14 may not exclude an obligation on States to open procedures for redress to a victim who, for example, reaches the State as a refugee having undergone torture elsewhere, while the perpetrator also came from another State.209 § 2. Existing domestic laws may have a better system of compensation, for example, by awarding larger amounts of compensation than those implied by the Convention. Domestic laws may also entitle a wider range of persons to be considered as victims and thus entitled to sue for compensation. There is no strict definition of who is considered a victim, but by reading this article in conjunction with Article 1, a victim should be any person who has suffered physically or mentally because of any act of torture. Article 14 is not expressly applicable in cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. This does not mean, however, that States may not be bound under other instruments to offer compensation in the case of a cruel act that is not considered to be torture. The ICCPR provides in Article 7 § 3 para. 3 a comparable, but more generally worded provision on the issue of redress, which is equally applicable to crimes of torture and to crimes of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Despite the wording of the provision, the CAT has also considered Article 14 to be applicable in cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment: “In all situations where reasonable grounds exist to believe that these disappearances amounted either to torture or to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the dependants of the deceased vic- II. INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS OF ARTICLES 1–16 OF THE CONVENTION 2. ANALYSIS OF SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS The instances in which a successful individual complaint to the CAT has been followed by adequate reparation are very rare. In theory, where the individual complaints procedure has been successful, but no compensation has been paid by the offending government, a further complaint of a violation of Article 14 could be made. In practice this has never happened.210 55