1.3.1 The absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment UN TREATY BODIES 1 – ICCPR Article 4(2) ICCPR explicitly provides that the State may not derogate from the right not to be subjected to torture or other ill-treatment under Article 7, even in times of public emergency. The HRC emphasised this point in its General Comment on Article 7, observing that “no justification or extenuating circumstances may be invoked to excuse a violation of article 7 for any reasons, including those based on an order from a superior officer or public authority.”118 – UNCAT No derogation is possible to any of the provisions of UNCAT, Article 2(2) of which provides: “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.” This provision is complemented by Article 2(3), which provides that orders from a superior cannot be invoked to justify torture. As discussed above, the offence of torture cannot be the subject of defences,119 a statute of limitations, or an amnesty. The prohibition is therefore absolute. Efforts by some States to justify torture and ill-treatment as a means to protect public safety or avert emergencies prompted the Committee against Torture to reiterate the absolute nature of the prohibition in a statement adopted following the events of 11 September 2001,120 in its Concluding Observations to States Parties,121 and in the case Agiza v Sweden, in which the Committee emphasised that “the Convention’s protections are absolute, even in the context of national security concerns.”122 Furthermore, in its General Comment No. 2, the Committee stressed that the provisions of the UNCAT apply wherever a State Party exercises de jure or de facto control.123 HRC, General Comment No. 20, 1992, §3. See, further, CAT, Concluding Observations on the UK, UN Doc. CAT/C/CR/33/3, 2004, §4(a)(ii) and 5(a). 120 UN Doc. A/57/44, 17 May 2002, §§17–18. 121 See, for example, CAT, Concluding Observations on the USA, UN Doc. CAT/C/USA/C/2, 2006, §14–15, where the CAT reiterated that the UNCAT applies in times of war, and on territory over which the State Party exercises de facto control, 122 Agiza v Sweden (2005), op. cit., §13.8. 123 CAT, General Comment No. 2, §16. 118 119 30