the new General Comment on Article 14 concerning the right to remedy and reparation, including rehabilitation.21 This is, in our view, a benchmark for states as the Committee endorsed the broader concept of the right to remedy and reparation for serious human rights violations that has emerged over the last two decades. At the same time, the decisions of the Committee against Torture themselves are an important element of the right to remedy indicating measures states have to take to implement (or repair) the violation. We can thus anticipate that the new General Comment may influence the Committee’s further pronunciations about the requisite reparations and this provides an important tool for us as lawyers. strengthened and reinforced. It deserves so as it has also shown its progressive force in many instances. It is today the only committee that calls its findings “decisions,” and we have seen recently the first-ever hearing held within an individual case.22 It came at the request of Kazakhstan under rule 117, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Procedure and while not being a public hearing, this first-ever oral proceeding provides a unique and exciting precedent. The relevant rule reads: The Committee may invite the complainant or his/her representative and representatives of the State party concerned to be present at specified closed meetings of the Committee in order to provide further clarifications or to answer questions on the merits of the complaint. Whenever one party is so invited, the other party shall be informed and invited to attend and make appropriate submissions. The non-appearance of a party will not prejudice the consideration of the case.23 Globally, the core challenge we face in litigating cases to the treaty bodies is the lack of implementation. This challenge exists even vis-à-vis the CAT, which appears to have a better compliance rate than other treaty bodies. The non-implementation of the decisions challenges the very integrity of the human rights system, and it should be at the center of attention if we want to strengthen the treaty body system. Many of us, including at the OMCT, have started to do more systematic follow-up advocacy, and I hope that we can bring this collective wisdom of implementation strategies to the table. Questions to be raised range from the Committee’s own follow-up procedure to issues of the legal framework (implementing legislation) to allow the “receipt of decisions” for example to re-open court cases or investigations. In many instances it concerns questions of political commitment but at the same time non-implementation is not always deliberate. In some instances we could observe that no institution appeared to feel responsible for the follow-up, and the setting up of a structure and a coordinating body could be of help. More often than not it is the foreign ministries that have followed the case, but have little or no awareness of the existence of case decisions within the justice ministry that would be entrusted with implementing legal remedies. It can only underline the quasi-judicial nature of the proceedings and contribute to the strengths and persuasive force of the Committee. Other examples include the openness of CAT to integrate a gender dimension into the torture debate as one of the first treaty bodies in the last fifteen years, which helped to reshape the debate on sexual violence from a private matter to one of due diligence and state responsibility. All this should encourage us to think creatively at this seminar. I would like to conclude with a remark of Judge Thomas Buergenthal, former Dean of this law school, who once told me that “as lawyers we sometimes have to be a little bit crazy if we want to move the law.” I wish all of us a very sound level of craziness during this seminar in order to come up with refreshing new ideas that can shape our use of the remedy to the Committee against Torture for the future. Finally and in conclusion, I firmly believe that the CAT as the universal anti-torture body is a venue that needs to be Thank you for your consideration. Endnotes: Opening Remarks 1 7 See Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, status as of 18-07-2013, available at http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails. aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-9&chapter=4&lang=en. 2 Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, [hereinafter OP CAT] G.A. res. A/RES/57/199, Art. 22, entered into force June 22, 2006. 3 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [hereinafter UN CAT], Art. 14, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. 4 Id. at Art. 3. 5 Id. at Art. 1, 16. 6 Committee against Torture, Rules of Procedure, Rule 117, ¶ 4, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/3/Rev.5 (Feb. 2011) available at: http://daccessdds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/411/40/PDF/G1141140. pdf?OpenElement. UN Comm. against Torture, Concluding Observations of the Committee against Torture, Madagascar (Nov. 2011) available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/followup/ Extractsfollow-upMadagascar47th.pdf. 8 UN CAT supra note 3, Art. 14. 9 UN Comm. against Torture, General Comment 3, U.N. Doc. No. CAT/C/GC/3 (2012). 10 EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy No. 11855/12 of June 25, 2012 [hereinafter Strategic Framework and Action Plan]. 11 Id. 12 See, e.g., EU Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World in 2012 (May13, 2013), available at http://register. consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/13/st09/st09431.en13.pdf. 13 Strategic Framework and Action Plan, supra note 10, at point 17. 14 UN CAT, supra note 3. 7