CAT/C/53/D/511/2012 the complainant, then it would, on its terms, apply to all victims, no matter how transient their connection to the forum State, and even if the courts of the alleged State are not able to provide an effective remedy; it would also apply to the victims’ dependants by virtue of the second sentence of article 14, paragraph 1. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 19 April 2013, the complainant submits that the State party’s observations on inadmissibility are misplaced, as the issue of whether an effective remedy is available in China is irrelevant to the author’s submissions that: (a) article 14 applies irrespective of the places of the acts of torture; and (b) article 14 requires the forum State to afford an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation unless it finds that there exists an effective remedy in another State or forum, and the Australian courts have not, in this case, declined jurisdiction on ordinary forum non conveniens grounds. 5.2 Concerning the merits, the complainant refutes the State party’s observation that compensation under article 14 should be limited to cases where a State party is in a position to enforce judgment. Specifically, the complainant asserts that the right to a civil remedy under article 14 is an enforceable right because it addresses both a substantive guarantee as well as a procedural right to proceed against perpetrators in a forum State’s courts, irrespective of whether the judgment is actually satisfied.30 The complainant also argues that the State party errs in relying on article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, because this provision expressly refers to acts of torture in any territory, whereas article 14 does not. The complainant further maintains that reading a territorial limitation into article 14 leads to anomalous results, because it means that if a State party tortures one of its citizens abroad, it has no obligation under article 14 to provide the victim either redress or an enforceable right to compensation in its own courts. The complainant also contests the State party’s argument that article 14 was not intended to provide universal civil jurisdiction, which the complainant asserts is less intrusive than the universal criminal jurisdiction that is clearly provided for in the Convention. The complainant further rejects the State party’s argument that article 14 is linked to articles 12 and 13, because the latter articles limit obligations to torture committee within a state’s jurisdiction, whereas article 14 does not. 5.3 The complainant also disputes the State party’s reliance upon State practice in its interpretation of article 14. The complainant asserts that in order to be considered, the State practice must rise to the level of establishing the agreement of all parties,31 and maintains that State practice concerning article 14 is equivocal at best.32 The complainant further argues that the deletion of the words “committed in any territory under its jurisdiction” from the text of article 14 was a mistake.33 5.4 The complainant further asserts that the State party mistakenly relies on customary international law. The complainant reasons that, while State immunity cannot be overridden by a claim that a breach of a jus cogens norm is involved, this is irrelevant to the 30 31 32 33 The complainant cites Nowak, “Torture and Enforced Disappearance” in Krause and Scheinin (eds.), International Protection of Human Rights: A Textbook. The State party cites Bouzari et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran (2004) 71 OR (3d) 675, para. 78. The complainant cites, inter alia, Committee against Torture, second periodic report of the United States of America, CAT/C/48/Add.3, 29 June 2005, para. 82; Nowak and McArthur, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Commentary, pp. 460–461. The complainant cites, inter alia, Craig Scott (ed.), Torture as Tort: Comparative Perspectives of the Development of Transnational Human Rights Litigation (Oxford Portland Oregon, Hart Publishing, 2001). 11