9.11.2017 A & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1123 (11 August 2004) (2) No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." 321. Article 3(1) is in these terms: "No state party shall expel, return or extradite a person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." 322. Article 4 requires each state party to "ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law". 323. Article 12 of CAT requires each state party to institute "a prompt and impartial investigation" whenever "there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction". 324. Article 14(1) provides: "Each state party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation …." 325. Article 15 is to this effect: "Each state party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made." 326. Article 16 requires each state party "to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture" when committed, or consented to or acquiesced in, by public officials. 327. Article 17 of CAT sets up a Committee Against Torture ("the Torture Committee"), which, by virtue of Article 19, each state party is required to inform about the measures they have taken in order to comply with their obligations under CAT. 328. Under Article 20, the Torture Committee is required, in effect, to investigate if it "receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a state party". 329. Article 22 entitles any state party to declare "that it recognises the competence of the Torture Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a state party of the provisions of the Convention". The UK has not made a declaration pursuant to Article 22. Issues of construction of the 2001 Act Introductory 330. A number of issues have been raised which turn in whole or in part on the proper construction of Part 4 of the 2001 Act, and they are set out at paragraph 291.(i) above. Because that statute must, of course, be construed as a whole, these issues, at least to some extent, inter-relate. 331. Before turning to these issues, there are two points of general relevance. First, to quote from the appellants' written submissions, certification under s21, Part 4 of the 2001 Act involves "the most grave deprivation of the liberty of individuals who are entitled to the full protection of ECHR Article 3 including its procedural requirements, the guarantees in Article 5 including Article 5(4) (save for Article 5(1)(f), which is the subject of derogation) and Article 6 fair trial rights in respect of their civil right to liberty". I accept that this must at all times be in the forefront of the mind of any judge considering any argument of fact or law relating to, or arising out of, the 2001 Act. 332. However, I think it is equally important to bear in mind that the legislature, one of whose primary functions is to ensure the safety of the realm, has concluded that there is a sufficiently grave and http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1123.html 79/113