Seeking Remedies for Torture Victims: A Handbook on the Individual Complaints Procedures of the UN Tready Bodies interpreters of their respective treaties, rejection of their recommendations is evidence of bad faith by a State towards its human rights treaty obligations.60 Nevertheless, it is unfortunately true that numerous States have failed to comply with their duties under the ICCPR and the CAT. Indeed, no State party has a perfect human rights record. However, some of the facts regarding non-compliance are truly alarming.61 Some States systemically and egregiously violate the CAT and the ICCPR, including its prohibitions on torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Some States have dreadful records in failing to submit reports on time. Many reports are completely inadequate. And there is little the Committees can do in the face of brazen non-compliance beyond continual public rebukes to a recalcitrant State. There is no other sanction for non-compliance prescribed in the UN human rights treaties. Given this occasionally depressing picture of State compliance, what is the use of the ICCPR and the CAT? Do they offer a useful avenue of reparations for a torture victim? The ICCPR and the CAT serve numerous significant purposes. First, the views, recommendations, and other jurisprudence of the Committees have had the effect of materially changing the behaviour of States on a number of occasions. Such changes may occur immediately, or later (even much later), for example after a State has undergone a transition from dictatorial to democratic government. They may have a “slow boil” effect, as State governments slowly reform themselves. They may galvanise opposition to an abusive government, both at home and abroad. They can inject human rights issues into domestic debates, and provide indicators for future reform. The views and recommendations of UN committees may at least force a government to engage with those views and to clearly explain its non-compliance. Finally, they may provide an important measure of vindication to a victim. One must not underestimate the effect that “shaming” can have on a delinquent State. It shines an uncomfortable spotlight on a State, which is in itself an important form of accountability. No State likes to be embarrassed by adverse human rights findings. It is particularly mortifying for a State to be labelled a torturer under either the ICCPR or the CAT, or both. Adverse findings of torture or other human rights violations under the ICCPR or the CAT helps to build pressure upon a State, which may eventually bear fruit by prompting that State to abandon torture as a policy. It may even bear more immediate fruits by leading to the provision of a remedy for victims. 60 61 40 Joseph, S., “Toonen v Australia: Gay Rights under the ICCPR”, 13 University of Tasmania Law Review 392 (1994), p. 401. See Section 2.4.3.