Introduction International human rights law defines the limits of a State’s power over individuals, and imposes positive obligations owed by the State to individuals. States voluntarily sign and ratify treaties that recognise and ensure the rights of every person, and submit themselves to the control of judicial or quasi-judicial organs which accept complaints from individuals. From the vantage point of the 21st century, with few States openly admitting to abuses of human rights, it is perhaps difficult to imagine the revolutionary nature of the first human rights treaties; for the first time, international law governed not only relations among States, but also between States and individuals. For certain acts, States could no longer claim that their sovereignty over their own territory prevented interference. State behaviour at the domestic level was now open to outside scrutiny. The prohibition against torture in international law is, like that against slavery or genocide, absolute. Torture is impermissible under any circumstances, including war, public emergency or terrorist threat. The prohibition is so strong and universally accepted that it is now a fundamental principle of customary international law. This means that even States which have not ratified any of the international treaties explicitly prohibiting torture are banned from using it against anyone, anywhere. However, there is no forum at the international level to which an individual can make a complaint based solely on a violation of customary international law, so such violations often carry consequences only where there is political will among other States to hold one another responsible.1 The extent of all States’ obligations to prevent torture is therefore largely determined by international treaties, and the bodies that interpret them. At the international level, the United Nations’ Human Rights Committee and Committee against Torture interpret State obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Convention against Torture, respectively. Where the State in question has recognised their competence to do so, these bodies may consider complaints from individuals against a State. The Committees are not courts, but rather quasi-judicial bodies, meaning that their decisions, while important to the interpretation of treaties, are not directly legally enforceable. Three regional systems for the protection of human rights Where a complaint is submitted by a State, the International Court of Justice has competence to declare whether a violation of customary international law has in fact occurred (Article 38(1)(b), Statute of the International Court of Justice, annexed to the Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, T.S. 993, entered into force Oct. 24, 1945, and incorporated therein by Article 92). 1 2