PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture 2.2 Interim Measures A key concern for any litigator on torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is the safety and personal integrity of the victim at the time of lodging the complaint or, sadly, sometimes as a result of having lodged a domestic or international complaint. Responding appropriately to this risk is thus of greatest importance, especially in cases of torture. In this regard, all of the Committees provide some special procedures that are designed to address such threats. As part of the process of considering individual complaints, the HRC and the CAT Committee are both able to request that a State takes particular action, or refrains from taking certain actions, in order to avoid irreparable damage to the victim or victims of alleged violations while the complaint is being considered.315 These positive measures or deliberate acts of restraint constitute ‘interim measures’. They may also be referred to as ‘provisional measures’ or ‘precautionary measures’. Interim measures have a protective purpose. A Committee may make such a request to the relevant State in cases of imminent danger to protect the rights of the victims of alleged violations and to avoid irreparable harm. States may be required to refrain from undertaking certain actions that could constitute a breach of their international obligations (negative obligation), such as the expulsion of an individual under their jurisdiction to a country when he or she would face the risk of being tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,or the execution of a death sentence. Interim measures may also be aimed at the fulfilment of positive obligations stemming from international human rights standards, which require certain action from the State party, such as the protection of the alleged victim’s life and safety, including the protection from threats or the delivery of medical assistance.316 A request for an interim measure may relate to only one individual, or to a group of individuals. Individual human rights complaints can frequently take years to be resolved, whereas this mechanism provides for prompt and preventive temporary action. (see, e.g., ECtHR, Soering v. the UK, Appl. No. 14038/88). The HRC has not generally accepted that a prolonged wait on death row is of itself a breach of that right (see Johnson v. Jamaica, Comm. No. 588/1994). 315 CAT Committee, Rules of Procedure, Rule 114, and HRC, Rules of Procedure, Rule 92. 316 Pasqualucci, J., “Interim Measures in International Human Rights: Evolution and Harmonization”, 38 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1 (2005), p. 4. 101