Ações positivas

In 1984, the Member States of the United Nations (UN) adopted the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereafter referred to as the Convention against Torture or UNCAT). They sought to provide the world with a robust international treaty that would reaffirm the absolute prohibition of torture under any circumstances. The Convention defines torture and outlines measures to prohibit, prevent, and protect against acts of torture.

Since it entered into force in 1987, it has emphasized the absolute prohibition of torture, with no exceptions. Ratification or accession to this Convention indicates consent to be bound by it and implement its provisions throughout the country's territory. In some way, it is a first, symbolic, but important, step taken by a country to show its willingness to eradicate torture. This means that the national laws of countries that are states parties to the Convention must prohibit torture with no grounds for exceptions.

In our visualisation, we spotlight countries that have ratified or acceded to this treaty and the year. 

The Convention also establishes the Committee against Torture (the Committee or CAT) - an international body of experts - to supervise its implementation by countries that have ratified it. It works to hold these countries accountable for human rights violations, systematically investigating reports of torture to stop and prevent this crime. 

Once ratified, one of the UNCAT requirements is the submission of a report to the Committee by states parties, highlighting the measures taken nationally towards the implementation of their obligations, as part of the review process. This is an important obligation under the UNCAT. A state party that would not submit its report regularly would send a wrong signal, indicating its reluctance to cooperate with the Committee or to eradicate torture. This process also allows other entities such as non-governmental organisations or national human rights institutions (NHRIs) to share information, to ensure the Committee receives information from a variety of sources, not only official and sometimes biased information from the state party.

The review also consists of a discussion and exchange between the Committee and the official delegation of the state party being reviewed. At the end of the review process, the Committee issues a series of recommendations that the state party should implement. These recommendations can also guide public decision-making.

We spotlight countries that have submitted an initial report to the Committee since ratification of the UnCAT. All the submitted reports may be found here.

In 2002, the Member States of the United Nations (UN) adopted the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereafter referred to as the Optional Protocol or OPCAT). With this Optional Protocol, they sought to complement the UNCAT with measures focused on the prevention of torture.

Since it entered into force in 2006, the OPCAT has introduced further preventive measures vital to achieve the objectives of the UNCAT, mainly the establishment of a system of regular visits by independent bodies at international and national levels. It requires its states parties to have independent institutions at the national level. These institutions are called “national preventive mechanisms” (NPMs). As ratification or accession is an agreement to be bound by and implement its provisions, countries that are states parties to the OPCAT must establish, designate, or maintain an NPM within the stipulated time to fulfil its functions. This mapping tool uses "designation" as an umbrella term encompassing the OPCAT requirements for NPMs.

We spotlight countries that have ratified or acceded to this treaty, as well as the year. 

Many international treaties explicitly prohibit, and urge countries to take effective measures to protect persons from, acts of torture in any territory under their jurisdiction. As a country’s constitution is the most important legal basis that outlines the principles by which it is governed, clearly stating that torture is prohibited in the constitution is one of the effective measures it can take to prevent and protect persons against torture.

We spotlight countries that have some form of prohibition of torture in their constitutional instrument. This means that the definition of torture in their constitution includes one or more of the key elements of torture as defined by the UNCAT. For this positive action, the United Kingdom, for example, has been included even though it doesn’t have a written constitution, as its Human Rights Act, which prohibits torture, is recognized as a form of constitutional instrument.

Another important obligation for states parties to the UNCAT is to criminalise and punish acts of torture under their domestic law. Domestic law refers to any law or regulation adopted by a country, applicable all over its territory, such as criminal and civil legislation.

We spotlight countries that have incorporated the offence of torture into their criminal or penal law/codes, whether by adopting the exact definition provided by the UNCAT, using a similar formulation, including certain elements, or omitting some altogether. Among those that have criminalised torture, we classify them into two categories:

1. Countries whose criminal laws fully align with the definition of torture under the UNCAT, either by directly adopting it or by using a substantively similar definition. Countries that fall under this category have their inputs as 'Yes'.
2. Countries whose criminal laws partially align, meaning their definitions include only some elements of the UNCAT definition of torture. Countries that fall under this category have their inputs as 'Partially'.
    

While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information presented—based on extensive research conducted by APT—some data may not fully reflect a country's current situation, whether due to recent changes or inadvertent errors. If you encounter any discrepancies, we would greatly appreciate it if you could notify us here so we can update the information promptly.

A system of regular visits by independent national bodies to places where persons are deprived of their liberty is an important measure in preventing torture. The states parties to the Optional Protocol have the obligation to establish, designate or maintain independent institutions called “national preventive mechanisms (NPMs)” whose mandate is to mitigate risks and prevent torture. 

To prevent torture, they monitor the places of detention, where torture is most likely to occur (e.g., prisons, police stations, secret cells, immigration detention centers, psychiatric institutions, etc.). Based on their monitoring visits to places of detention, they prepare reports and formulate recommendations for improving the conditions of detention, which they submit to and discuss with the relevant authorities. They are responsible for creating a spirit of dialogue with the authorities, which will contribute to the implementation of their recommendations.

We spotlight countries whose national laws provide for the existence of NPMs, whether by establishment or designation. More information about the NPMs here. 

To fully implement the obligations under the OPCAT, the established, designated, or maintained NPM should be operational. The operationalisation of the NPM is the last phase to ensure it can carry out its mandate. To assess this, we use three criteria as prescribed by the OPCAT:
-    Existence of staff
-    Existence of a budget
-    Conducting monitoring visits 

We spotlight countries that have NPMs who meet these criteria. More information about the NPMs' operationality here. 

National human rights institutions (NHRIs) are state bodies with the mandate to protect and promote human rights in their countries. Although established by the state, they operate independently from the state and the government. NHRIs monitor and report on human rights in their country and assist the state in ensuring that international human rights conventions are implemented nationally. They investigate violations, support victims seeking justice, and lead education programs to combat violence and discrimination. To promote lasting change, NHRIs work with national partners and engage with the international human rights system.

In 1993, the UN General Assembly adopted the Paris Principles, which provide for the establishment of a national institution to promote and protect human rights, including freedom from torture, and set out minimum standards NHRIs must meet to be effective. It requires NHRIs to be fully independent and to comply with other principles such as a broad mandate and functions, pluralism of members, adequate powers and resources, cooperative methods, etc. 

The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) has a system of accreditation to identify countries that fully and partially comply, using 'status'. NHRIs that fully comply with these principles are accredited as ‘A status’, while ‘B status' means partial compliance. Countries can be promoted or demoted to a different status annually. See details of its accreditation here.

We spotlight countries whose NHRIs fully comply with these principles. The date of compliance is recorded as the first year in which a country was reviewed and found to be compliant, for those that have continuously maintained their GANHRI-accredited A status. For countries that previously held an A status but lost and later regained it, the recorded date reflects the year in which they regained an A status. 

**For data consistency, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Great Britain's NHRIs are counted as 1 under the United Kingdom. We use the earliest date of accreditation for Northern Ireland, even though Scotland was accredited A in 2009 and Great Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission was accredited in 2008.