against Torture “of the non-derogable nature of most of the obligations undertaken by them in ratifying the Convention”. The Committee in particular highlighted: • Article 2 (whereby no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification of torture); • Article 15 (prohibiting confessions extorted by torture being admitted in evidence, except against the torturer); and • Article 16 (requiring steps to prevent cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment).341 In its concluding observations in relation to a number states parties’ reports to CAT, the Committee has emphasized the non-derogability of its provisions. The Committee has stressed that while it is “aware of the difficulties that the State party faces in its prolonged fight against terrorism, recalls that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever can be invoked as a justification for torture. It stresses in particular that the reactions of the State party to such threats must be compatible with article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention [against Torture] and within the limits of Security Council resolution 1373 (2001).”342 As noted above, it is a guiding OSCE principle that the use of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment can never be justified and that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification of torture. These principles are re-affirmed in the Council of Europe Guidelines on Human Rights and the Fight against Terrorism. Guideline IV confirms the absolute prohibition of torture: The use of torture or of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, is absolutely prohibited, in all circumstances, and in particular during the arrest, questioning and detention of a person suspected of or convicted of terrorist activities, irrespective of the nature of the acts that the person is suspected of or for which he/she was convicted. The European Court has recalled the absolute prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on many occasions. For example: […] Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies. Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention and of Protocols Nos. 1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 para. 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation […] The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim’s conduct […] The nature of the offence allegedly committed by the applicant was therefore irrelevant for the purposes of Article 3.343 341 Statement of the Committee against Torture, doc. CAT/C/XXVII/Misc.7 (2001), 22 November 2001. 342 CAT, Concluding observations: Yemen, doc. CAT/C/CR/31/4, 5 February 2004, para. 5. See also CAT, Concluding observations: Egypt, doc. CAT/C/CR/29/4, 23 December 2002, para. 4; Israel, doc. CAT/C/XXVII/Concl.5, 23 November 2001, para. 5; Russian Federation, doc. CAT/C/CR/28/4, 6 June 2002, para. 4; Spain, doc. CAT/C/CR/29/3, 23 December 2002, para. 7. For some details about UN Security Council Resolution 1373 see pp. 35-36 above. 343 ECtHR, Labita v. Italy, Application no. 26772/95, 6 April 2000, para. 119; op. cit., note 143, ECtHR, Ireland v. UK, para. 163; op. cit., note 303, ECtHR, Soering v. UK, para. 88; op. cit., note 144, ECtHR, Chahal v. United Kingdom, para. 79; op. cit., note 220, ECtHR, Aksoy v. Turkey, para. 62; op. cit., note 30, ECtHR, Aydin v. Turkey, para. 81; ECtHR, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, Case no. 90/1997/874/1086, 28 October 1998, para. 93; op. cit., note 329, ECtHR, Selmouni v. France, para. 95. 124 Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights