United Nations Convention Against Torture

Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
states parties   states that have signed, but not ratified   states that have not signed
Type	Human rights convention
Drafted	10 December 1984[1]
Signed	4 February 1985[2]
Location	New York
Effective	26 June 1987[1]
Condition	20 ratifications[3]
Signatories	83[1]
Parties	174[1]
Depositary	UN Secretary-General[4]
Languages	Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish[5]
Full text
Convention against Torture at Wikisource

The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (commonly known as the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT)) is an international human rights treaty under the review of the United Nations that aims to prevent torture and other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment around the world.

The Convention requires member states to take effective measures to prevent torture in any territory under their jurisdiction, and forbids member states to transport people to any country where there is reason to believe they will be tortured.

The text of the convention was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1984^[1] and, following ratification by the 20th state party,^[3] it came into force on 26 June 1987.^[1] 26 June is now recognized as the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, in honor of the convention. Since the convention's entry was enforced, the absolute prohibition against torture and other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.^[6] As of April 2024, the convention has 174 state parties.^[1]

The Convention follows the structure of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), with a preamble and 33 articles, divided into three parts:

Part I (Articles 1–16) contains a definition of torture (Article 1), and commits parties to taking effective measures to prevent any act of torture in any territory under their jurisdiction (Article 2). These include ensuring that torture is a criminal offense under a party's municipal law (Article 4), establishing jurisdiction over acts of torture committed by or against a party's nationals (Article 5), ensuring that torture is an extraditable offense (Article 8), and establishing universal jurisdiction to bring cases of torture to trial where an alleged torturer cannot be extradited (Article 5). Parties must promptly investigate any allegation of torture (Articles 12 and 13), and victims of torture, or their dependents in case victims died as a result of torture, must have an enforceable right to compensation (Article 14). Parties must also ban the use of evidence produced by torture in their courts (Article 15), and are barred from deporting, extraditing, or refouling people where there are substantial grounds for believing they will be tortured (Article 3). Parties are required to train and educate their public servants and private citizens involved in the custody, interrogation, or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention, or imprisonment, regarding the prohibition against torture (Article 10). Parties also must keep interrogation rules, instructions, methods, and practices under systematic review regarding individuals who are under custody or physical control in any territory under their jurisdiction, in order to prevent all acts of torture (Article 11). Parties are also obliged to prevent all acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment in any territory under their jurisdiction, and to investigate any allegation of such treatment. (Article 16).

Part II (Articles 17–24) governs reporting and monitoring of the convention and the steps taken by the parties to implement it. It establishes the Committee Against Torture (Article 17), and empowers it to investigate allegations of systematic torture (Article 20). It also establishes an optional dispute-resolution mechanism between parties (Article 21) and allows parties to recognize the competence of the committee to hear complaints from individuals about violations of the convention by a party (Article 22).

Part III (Articles 25–33) governs ratification, entry into force, and amendment of the convention. It also includes an optional arbitration mechanism for disputes between parties (Article 30).

Article 1.1 of the Convention defines torture as:

For the purpose of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

The words "inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions" remain vague and very broad. It is extremely difficult to determine what sanctions are "inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions" in a particular legal system and what are not. The drafters of the Convention neither provided any criteria for making such determination nor did it define the terms. The nature of the findings would so differ from one legal system to another that they would give rise to serious disputes among the parties to the convention. It was suggested that the reference to such rules would make the issue more complicated, for it would endow the rules with a semblance of legal binding force. This allows state parties to pass domestic laws that permit acts of torture that they believe are within the lawful sanctions clause. However, the most widely adopted interpretation of the lawful sanctions clause is that it refers to sanctions authorized by international law. Pursuant to this interpretation, only sanctions that are authorized by international law will fall within this exclusion. The interpretation of the lawful sanctions clause leaves no scope of application and is widely debated by authors, historians, and scholars alike.^[7]

Article 2 prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under their jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever"^[8] may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.^[6] In other words, torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies.^[8] Subordinates who commit acts of torture cannot abstain themselves from legal responsibility on the grounds that they were just following orders from their superiors.^[6]

The prohibition on torture applies to anywhere under a party's effective jurisdiction inside or outside of its borders, whether on board its ships or aircraft or in its military occupations, military bases, peacekeeping operations, health care industries, schools, day care centers, detention centers, embassies, or any other of its areas, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of nationality or how that control is exercised.^[6]

The other articles of part I lay out specific obligations intended to implement this absolute prohibition by preventing, investigating, and punishing acts of torture.^[6]

Article 3 prohibits parties from returning, extraditing, or refouling any person to a state "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."^[9] The Committee Against Torture has held that this danger must be assessed not just for the initial receiving state, but also to states to which the person may be subsequently expelled, returned or extradited.^[10] Asylum Law in Mexico and the United States: A Comparative Analysis of Compliance with the Convention Against Torture I. Introduction Asylum law has been topical in Mexico and the United States – two countries that lie along the border and share the burden of constant migration. These movements of people due to violent conflicts, persecution, and economic stress pose a continually increasing challenge to the two countries' asylum systems. The shell and core of these deliberations is the Convention Against Torture (CAT), an international instrument both countries have signed and ratified. CAT plays a pivotal role in guaranteeing those who escape torture and persecution are protected under the law, with signatory countries forced to offer asylum. However, as Mexico and the United States are parties to CAT, the way they have adopted and are compliant with these CAT obligations differ in many respects due to the differences in political, legal and institutional systems. This paper asserts that while Mexico is a signatory to CAT, its level of adherence is relatively low because of institutional and infrastructural factors that undermine the asylum process and expose asylum seekers to various risks. On the other hand, although the U.S. has access to far more money, there are problems with fulfilling CAT obligations because of the shrinking of asylum policies, especially in some recent governments. These policies have gradually chipped away at the country's promise under the CAT, rendering torture survivors unable to seek the protection they deserve. While both nations are obligated to CAT, their implementation demonstrates different issues that require amendments for asylum seekers escaping torture to have better and more standard protection. Previous research has analyzed the respective legal systems of both countries separately. To my knowledge, no research compares how Mexico and the U.S meet the CAT. This paper addresses this issue by comparing each country's domestic asylum laws to their obligations under CAT and providing suggestions for better compliance with the standards. Thus, this paper intends to contribute to the discussion on international human rights law and present solutions that can improve both countries' asylum systems closer to the CAT treaty's intentions and provisions. Lastly, the outcomes of this study may provide more robust safeguards for asylum seekers in Mexico and the United States. They can become a foundation for other countries to overcome similar difficulties. II. Background: The Convention Against Torture (CAT) A. Historical Context The Convention Against Torture has profoundly influenced the legal frameworks for asylum systems globally and shaped protection extended to refugees and asylum seekers. European Union countries, for instance, along with Canada and Australia, have integrated various provisions of CAT into their national legislation, thus increasing legal protections for those fleeing persecution. The policy of prohibition of deportation of a person to a country where torture may be perpetrated against that person has been adopted for example in most European countries hence international standards for the treatment of asylum seekers. It has consequently influenced stronger asylum procedures comprising risk assessments as well as legal prohibitions on returns in cases where torture is at risk. Besides, CAT-inspired regional frameworks, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, to support the rights of persons fleeing violence and abuse even further. The United Nations Committee Against Torture is a central entity of focus in monitoring and enforcing nations on their compliance with provisions required by the treaty agreement. It has various powers to review periodic reports submitted by parties, to assess the progress covered towards the implementation of various provisions of CAT, and to seek addressing of violations, along with other kinds of concerns. The result of this monitoring is that the Committee can hold states accountable for the way they treat persons who may be vulnerable to torture, such as those claiming asylum. In the event of violations, recommendations may be made or required by the Committee, including changes in domestic law or asylum policy. The Committee plays an important role in oversight that would lead to the materialization of CAT's principles, something that would not allow the states to get away from their international law obligations. The provisions of the Convention Against Torture have, quite remarkably been called into action in various high-profile cases of humanitarian appeal, especially in Europe to stop the deportation or extradition of a person at risk of being tortured. Included among these are cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights, where various applications are made involving Article 3 which prevents the deportation of asylum seekers to countries with abysmal human rights standards. These cases have indeed created important precedents in international law, emphasizing the norm that prohibition on torture takes primacy over diplomatic relations or concerns of national security. The Court did rule in one such case that a person who was facing deportation to a country with a history of political persecution and torture could not be returned, applying the protections under CAT. Likewise, courts in Canada have stopped deportations when there was credible evidence that the person would be tortured or subjected to cruel treatment upon arrival. Another provision of CAT is Article 3, which provides that no person should be returned to a country where he or she is likely to be tortured. In its effect, this provision concerns asylum law since states are obliged to determine whether an asylum seeker is expected to be tortured if he or she is repatriated. The provision is supposed to give protection to people fleeing due to systemic persecution. Hence, people in fear for their lives should not be forced back to face the dangers. This obligation against deportation is not only a moral duty but also legal since it falls under the obligation every state is under to take safeguards against torture through domestic measures. Furthermore, the importance of Article 3 is based on the fact that, when assessing whether an asylum seeker would face the risk of torture upon return, it is for the state to prove otherwise. In this way, the treaty has been most effective as a legal basis for many countries that offer asylum and has made protecting against torture an axiom in international refugee law. B. Global Impact of CAT The legal impact of the Convention Against Torture suggests that it has greatly impacted the legal frameworks of asylum systems globally, influencing the protection of refugees and asylum seekers. Currently, CAT's provisions have been adopted by several states, including those within the European Union, Canada and Australia, to name but a few, thereby strengthening the domestic legal frameworks within which asylum seekers enjoy protection from persecution. For instance, most countries in Europe have policies against the expulsion of persons to countries where torture is practised, thereby protecting asylum seekers in conformity with international principles of human rights. This has, in turn, fostered improved procedures for granting asylum, focusing on elaborate risk analysis besides protection offered by laws to such persons endangered to be tortured. Furthermore, CAT has encouraged the development of other regional systems that are even more supportive of the rights of those persecuted for the use of violence and abuse. The United Nations Committee against Torture (CAT) is important in supervising and ensuring countries meet the commitments stated in the treaty. The committee is also charged with the duty of receiving and considering State party reports periodically, which contain an evaluation of steps taken by them to fulfil CAT's provisions or any violation of the same. This monitoring process makes the Committee ensure that state governments are answerable for their treatment of persons who may be vulnerable to torture, including asylum seekers. The Committee can suggest or demand states to undertake corrective actions if violations are confirmed. The latter may consist in amending domestic legislation or asylum policy. The Committee supervises compliance in an important way that states must avoid escaping their international legal obligations. It also ensures that CAT's principles are implemented. The provisions of the Convention Against Torture have been used effectively in several other major cases, particularly in Europe, to prevent torture of individuals at risk of it through deportation or extradition. One important example can be drawn from the European Court of Human Rights, and these include several cases in which Article 3 has been used to prevent the deportation of asylum seekers to countries with documented rights abuses. These cases have established principles of international law in which torture violates the sovereignty and national security overpowers diplomatic sovereignty. For example, in Chahal v. The United Kingdom (1996), the Court held that a person who was to be deported to a country with records of political persecution and torture could not be deported under CAT provisions. In the same regard, in Canada, the Federal Court has prevented deportations to countries where there is evidence that the subject of deportation would suffer torture or inhuman treatment. B. CAT in Domestic Law Mexico Mexico signed the Convention Against Torture in 1986, the provisions of which were later incorporated into domestic law under the Ley Sobre Refugiados y Protección Complementaria (Law on Refugees and Complementary Protection). The object of this law was the means for ensuring Mexico's compliance with its underpinning international duties arising from CAT, especially its cornerstone principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning an asylum seeker to a country where he or she could be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment. This law provides a framework under which asylum seekers can seek protection, ensuring that those who run the risk of torture should not be expelled from Mexico. This is the legal incorporation through which Mexico has come to be one of the key players in the protection of refugees in Latin America. The law also provides for procedures to be followed during the application for asylum and protection of individuals who face a credible risk of harm. Among the Ley Sobre Refugiados y Protección Complementaria provisions, Article 15 is most applicable because it covers how Mexico satisfies CAT and the principle of non-refoulement. Under the bindings of the United Nations Convention also, Article 15 bans the expulsion or return of a person to a country where he is likely to be tortured. This article makes certain that persons with a legitimate fear of torture are not forced back into a harmful environment, which is very important. Nonetheless, an application of non-refoulement has encountered certain challenges since asylum seekers have difficulty comprehending specific legal and procedural issues in Mexico. This has led to situations whereby persons suspected to be tortured are removed to unsafe nations because of slow or ineffective asylum procedures. Much legislative and institutional work to enhance the asylum process and protect human rights has been done in Mexico after the ratification of CAT. One important step was the creation of the Comisión Mexicana de Ayuda a Refugiados (COMAR) in the nineties, which is why, today, the Mexican governmental body deals with asylum requests. This formal institutional development happened when the number of refugees and asylum seekers arriving in Mexico increased, and COMAR has a central responsibility to implement CAT practically. Further, with the Mérida Initiative – a bilateral United States–Mexico cooperation plan on the issues of combating drug violence and the reinforcement of the rule of law, the asylum seekers faced challenges. At the same time, the human rights reforms were initiated. These reforms were expected to improve Mexico's ability to protect refugees by providing legal support and bettering the asylum system. United States The CAT was signed in 1988 and ratified by the United States in 1994 ‘whereby it agreed to be bound by the undertaking and refrain from returning individuals to countries where they would be tortured.’ After this ratification, CAT provisions were brought into the U.S domestic legal system through the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (FARRA) of 1998. FARRA introduced a legal regime for non-refoulement under U.S. asylum law to protect individuals who are sent to another country where they will undergo torture or inhumane treatment. This law also allowed people an opportunity to seek protection from deportation if they had a well-founded fear of torture. The U.S. legal system did so through FARRA and associated CAT’s international obligations in the U.S. asylum and deportation laws. The non-refoulement principle of CAT is incorporated into U.S. law under section 241(b)(3) of INA, which gives some protection against removal where a person can establish a credible fear of torture. This provision enables a person to seek withholding of removal if only the person can demonstrate that return to his/her country of origin will lead to torture on proof of facts. However, Section 241(b)(3) does provide critical protection, but its accessibility is often hindered by process and rule writing and the burdens of proof in torturing risk. Refugee applicants are forced to deal with a bureaucracy that consists of immigration courts and appeals that are very much stacked against them. Depending on a claim for a credible fear of torture may currently lead to the denial of protection for people who are genuinely in danger. The use of CAT in asylum law in the United States differs from other protection forms, such as withholding of removal or CAT claims, making the legal system obscure for many refugees. For example, removal suspension safeguards an individual from deportation to a country where one can be persecuted. Still, CAT protection is limited in the sense that it only guards against torture. An important difference is that, unlike asylum or withholding of removal claims, a successful claim under CAT does not mean the applicant will be granted permanent residency under U.S. law. One important case law which has dealt with the provisions of CAT is Zheng v. Ashcroft, where great consideration was paid to the question of whether an applicant could be subjected to torture in their home country. In Zheng v. Ashcroft, the Court said that the applicant's fear of harm was insufficient to warrant a CAT claim because the applicants must provide substantial evidence to support their claims. III. Mexico’s Asylum Law and Compliance with CAT A. Institutional Framework Role of UNHCR UNHCR has been involved in supporting the building of the capacities of Mexico's asylum system by collaborating with COMAR on technical cooperation. It has, thus, played a vital role in bringing efficiency and effectiveness to asylum systems in Mexico to full compliance with international standards and Mexico's undertakings under CAT. With the support from UNHCR, Mexico learned procedures for protecting refugees and asylum, furthering local institutional capacity. The interventions of UNHCR also included raising awareness about refugee matters in society so the asylum seekers can find a place in Mexican culture easily. This change could be supported by the fact that Mexico, in 2018, signed the Global Compact on Refugees, which provided an upward trend in improving the asylum procedures. Mexico signed this compact to enhance the quality of its asylum processing, meaning closing the existing deficits in refugee legal and policy frameworks. The Compact also demands more international cooperation, and Mexico has received more support from the UNHCR and other international bodies to fulfil such obligations. These have brought measures that have sought to enhance the effectiveness of asylum systems. Among them are reduced processing time for asylum seekers and enhanced refugee support services. This new reality has been hard to adjust to, and UNHCR has intervened to provide the necessary financial and material support to deal with the huge backlog of applications, especially in Chiapas and Oaxaca. Both states have become key regions for the initial reception of migrants, especially refugees from violence and persecution in Central America. Asylum seekers have overwhelmed COMAR's limited resources in recent years, and this has depended on UNHCR support to keep it running, including seconding staff, as well as training and other logistics to achieve compliance with processing standards that take into consideration the rights of asylum seekers under international law. COMAR’s Resource Challenges COMAR faces serious resource conditions that impact its ability and efficiency in handling asylum application requests, including those accrued in the last few years, when such applications came in with unprecedented frequency. Mexico faced budget constraints between 2018 and 2022, which limited the capacity on the part of the government in providing timely, proper management to asylum seekers. These financial constraints have translated into fewer staff, inability to train the available staff, and slow processing of claims, which in the long run erodes the capacity of Mexico to meet her obligations under the CAT. The lack of funds has been most felt in areas that experience a high influx of migrants, whereby such asylum seekers give long waits without understanding their case status. Infrastructure and staff are insufficient, which challenges COMAR in meeting the CAT requirements, especially in those areas with high migrant arrivals. Mexico's southernmost states, such as Chiapas and Oaxaca, are now welcoming centres for refugees, but these places do not have the means to accommodate the increasing number of asylum seekers. These regions suffer some major logistical challenges besides inadequate physical infrastructure for the accommodation of asylum seekers, restricted access to legal aid, and a serious shortage of personnel to adjudicate on the merit of such applications competently. That is why many asylum seekers are stuck in Hungarian limbo, or worse, pushed to accept unfavourable conditions and exploitation or sent back to face their possible death. Such constraints limit Mexico's ability to meet CAT's requirements, including the non-refoulement principle and increase the vulnerability of participants in torture and persecution, exacerbating the country’s protection deficiencies. The asylum seekers rate has significantly increased in the recent past; from 8,800 in 2013, Mexico received over 131,000 asylum seekers in 2021, under immense pressure that COMAR claims it cannot handle. This growth is fuelled by a rising level of violence, political turbulence, and economic coercion in nations such as Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala that compel refugees to flee to Mexico. To handle such a high number of applications, COMAR is severely understaffed, and funds are dwindling, leaving the process with long delays and much frustration from the asylum seekers. Due to the rising number of applications, COMAR has increasingly become unable to exercise enough oversight to ensure that asylum claims are processed in derogation of international law and CAT. B. Challenges to Compliance Impact of Organized Crime and Violence Mexico's high cartel violence creates significant security risks for asylum seekers – including in places where state power is precarious. Migrants crossing through Mexico are essentially trapped and helpless in front of criminal groups which dominate specific areas of the country; therefore, they are easily exploited. Cartels threaten, kidnap, and even kill migrants, as these people are not immune from violence, escaping violence in their home country. The existence of these groups greatly limits Mexico's capacity to ensure safety and protection as mandated by the CAT because asylum seekers are targeted in drug wars and other criminal activities. Immigrants face increased risks in Mexico mostly because many asylum seekers will have to cross the territories which are dominated by organized criminals or are lawless. Criminal groups take advantage of migrants for being socially and economically vulnerable and helpless; they are harassed, physically and sexually assaulted, and demanded for ransom. The risks are especially high in southern and northern border states where migrants, especially those from Central America, pass through Mexican territory in asylum seeking to the United States. In these areas, the local police force may be infiltrated by criminal groups or simply unable to act against them, which makes Mexico incapable of ensuring that the migrants will not be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment. U.S. Policies and Their Effect on Mexico The 'Remain in Mexico' policy, also called Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), brought serious changes to the Mexican asylum system and its ability to protect asylum seekers effectively. Under this policy, asylees had to remain in Mexico while awaiting their immigration proceedings in the USA, which exposed them to various abuses and risks, such as overcrowding. It puts a lot of pressure on Mexico's limited resources. Also, it gave migrants a dangerous path in which they could become victims of violence or be exploited in towns that have high crime rates on the border. The burden placed on local shelters, available resources, and Mexico's capacity to ensure protection and humanitarian assistance for the victims has made it difficult for Mexico to fulfil CAT requirements efficiently. Therefore, migrants were vulnerable, with limited legal or physical remedies available to them, and Mexico could not effectively fulfil its obligations to protect refugees from persecution and torture. Other policies implemented by the U.S, like the "Safe Third Country" agreements, have also played a major role in how Mexico has been positioned to maintain its asylum system and adhere to CAT. These agreements, where countries such as Mexico are deemed 'safe' for asylum seekers, compel migrants to seek refuge in the first country of arrival, however incapable or unwilling such a state may be. The use of such policies limits the burden of protecting refugees in Mexico. This nation lacks sufficient infrastructure to protect refugees, especially with a rising influx of refugees and asylum seekers who are fleeing violence and persecution from Central America. Courts that hear legal cases against such policies, such as the Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf case, described the adverse impacts for Mexico and the potential of human rights abuses that may ensue due to the passing of the buck exercise by the U.S. government to Mexico. Policy initiatives like "Remain in Mexico" have had a dire impact on humanitarian rights, and many asylum seekers have been subjected to violence and exploitation while in Mexico. Accounts of sexual violence, kidnappings, and ransom-type attacks have regularly emerged from places like Tijuana and Ciudad Juárez, where migrants may languish for months or years in dire circumstances. The failings in accommodating the needs of the asylum seekers through sheltering, medical services, and legal services have rendered them more vulnerable as they end up being exploited by criminal groups, thereby posing a major risk to their lives. The policies exposed by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have contributed to an increased level of violence against migrants, where instances of abuse of women and children by human trafficking rings have shot up. This has not only hindered Mexico's ability to address CAT compliance effectively but also perpetuated a cycle of harm where individuals who should be protected through asylum are nearly always made more vulnerable. IV. The United States Asylum Law and Compliance with CAT A. Overview of U.S. Asylum Framework Defensive vs. Affirmative Asylum: The U.S. asylum process is divided into two main categories: affirmative and defensive asylum. Affirmative asylum claims are applied actively and managed by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). In affirmative asylum, the applicant must prove fear of persecution, but the process is not a legal battle, and persons denied asylum have a right to appeal. On the other hand, protective asylum is made by a person who is facing deportation and applies for asylum protection as his defence mechanism. These claims are filed to an immigration judge in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). They are usually more legalized than the administrative version, with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) acting as the government representative and opposing the claim. The asylum-seekers can file claims for protection under the CAT, and in so doing, there is a clear distinction as to how CAT claims are processed under the two asylum procedures. Both groups of asylum seekers could apply for CAT protection if the person is likely to be tortured in their home country upon their return. Nonetheless, in defensive asylum claims, the applicant has to provide a higher burden of proof and often experiences difficulties due to the increased legal confrontation. Conversely, affirmative asylum applicants also get a chance to speak without being threatened with being deported soon, which may give them ample time to get some evidence. However, the legal requirements for CAT claims – i.e. It can be established that it is more probable than not that the applicant will be tortured if returned- have remained the same for both types of claims. The main responsibility lies with supervising immigration judges and their admissibility of asylum and CAT at the EOIR and the DOJ. EOIR's immigration judges exercise discretion chiefly where asylum seekers meet qualifying criteria for protection under CAT; the Court of Appeal may reverse these decisions. Much controversy surrounds the DOJ's responsibility for overseeing immigration judges, the political nature of immigration courts, and the application of asylum and CAT rights. Asylum seekers experience unpredictability in decisions given because immigration judges can make varying assessments of the law, and administrative policy shifts between presidents affect how asylum and CAT claims are processed. B. Challenges to Compliance U.S. administrations have also differed in their approach to implementing the CAT protection, influencing compliance with international legal requirements. The Obama administration upheld human rights, and, in general, its policies were more favourable toward the applicants for protection under CAT. The immigration policies during the Obama era were liberal, but the Trump administration reduced the immigration policies for asylum seekers and those seeking CAT protection. The acting immigration director also criticized the MPP program and the reduction of opportunities to seek asylum for further weakening safeguards for those at risk of torture. These policy changes have resulted in the absence of uniformity when implementing CAT protections, thus facilitating legal cases and questions on the U.S. ' non-compliance with its obligations under the Convention Against Torture. Policy Shifts Across Administrations: The Biden administration has tried to roll back some of Trump's restrictive policies. However, problems persist about guaranteeing effective CAT protections for asylum seekers. Among the most drastic changes in policies, it is worth mentioning the partial reversal of the "Remain in Mexico" policy that meant that asylum seekers had to wait in border cities that were unsafe and notorious for violence, extortion, and threats by criminal groups. Despite the Biden administration's efforts towards restoring the asylum procedures and managing the humanitarian crisis on the border between the United States and Mexico, there are still certain measures that challenge asylum seekers. These policies have rendered the U.S. compliance with the requirement of the CAT difficult, as many migrants are not afforded sufficient protection when they undergo the CAT process. Systemic Barriers in U.S. Courts: There are several impediments within the context of the U.S. immigration court system, which impede the provision of equal and efficient processing of asylum and CAT claims. The number of backlogged cases in immigration courts in the United States reached 1.5 million in 2022, meaning that individuals applying for protection under CAT undergo long waiting lists. These delays make the asylum seekers even more vulnerable, not knowing how long their legal status will remain valid or at any one time fearing deportation. The backlog has especially impacted composite cases, especially those seeking asylum under the CAT, since the probability of being tortured on return forms part of the assessment of the Court. This slow rate of handling cases slows down the asylum system and hampers the clients from receiving protection from CAT to which they are entitled. Therefore, most asylum seekers spend significant time in limbo – that is, they are vulnerable to various dangers before their cases are considered. V. Comparative Analysis: Mexico vs. the United States A. Institutional Capacity vs. Policy Restrictions Institutional Frameworks: There are large discrepancies between Mexico and the United States regarding the institutional treatment of asylum seekers and their compliance with CAT. Despite being consistent with laws in the CAT, Mexico's asylum processing faces problems of underfunding, practical issues, and inadequate resources to manage the increasing number of asylum seekers. Asylum is mainly administered through COMAR. However, the organization has not had success in dealing with limited resources and issues of migration in Mexico, particularly in the south. On the other hand, the United States has a better-developed and more elaborate framework for asylum, which consists of official governmental agencies such as USCIS, EOIR, DHS, etc. However, this system has a harsh policy like the 'Remain in Mexico' policy and 'Title 42' that hinders the process of asylum and makes deformation with CAT due to delayed protection of survivors of torture and persecution. Moreover, the geographical location of each country also affects their asylum regimes and CAT compliance strategies and policies. Mexico is seen as a transit country for many Central Americans seeking asylum in the United States, and it, therefore, has a specific role as well as grappling with what migrants experience. Fleeing violence from criminal organizations, asylum seekers in Mexico face threats within the system, and the Mexican asylum system can hardly protect them. On the other hand, the United States acts as the destination country for asylum seekers, which gives it more control over the process while experiencing very stringent immigration laws that politically seek to curtail the number of asylum seekers. Some of these U.S. policies include May remaining in Mexico, where vulnerable asylum seekers have been left at the mercy of dangers in the border towns instead of affording compliance with CAT.

Legal Standards and Interpretations

The final distinction between the law systems of Mexico and the U.S in regards to CAT is in the definition of the word torture. In Mexico, it is difficult to guarantee the protection of asylum seekers, who may be tortured in their home countries, as the state has a weak institutional base and is uneven in the region. Mexican courts tend to promote CAT Articles since it is their role to protect vulnerable people. Still, an implementation reality is that many users remain vulnerable due to corruption, lack of legal representation, and slow processing of cases. However, the meaning of torture in the United States of America has recently been defined in the narrow perspective by the U.S courts, as seen in cases like Zheng V. Ashcroft. This has made it even harder for asylum seekers to show that they would suffer torture in case they were to be deported back to their home countries, thus making it difficult for the U.S to conform to CAT, besides the fact that ASSs are also subjected to dangers while waiting in unsafe border towns, therefore not following CAT. B. Common Challenges Mexico and the United States have both had external shocks that worsened the stress on their asylum systems, most especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic led to border closures, deportations or limited asylum procedures, which influenced both country's inability to meet CAT requirements. In Mexico, the pandemic rapidly decreased the asylum application processing because COMAR lacked the personnel, and the system was very congested. Likewise, the U.S. toughened its asylum rules by halting interviews and expediting the deportation of migrants, among which some are tortured individuals, under the pretext of containing the spread of the COVID-19 virus. The COVID-19 response of both countries was a microcosm of a politicized immigration context as it compounded the challenges that asylum seekers faced in being afforded the protection they are supposed to be afforded under international law. International organizations have often raised concerns regarding Mexico's and the United States' treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, including children travelling alone or survivors of sexual violence. The Organizations for Human Rights have urged that both countries not completely commit to CAT provision since policies hinder the protection of the persons belonging to these groups. There are not enough mechanisms to address the needs of the groups in the CAT. In Mexico, the poverty and difficulty that cartels present to the migrants, especially the minors and women, fails to provide them safe passage and rather exposes them to additional harassment and abuses. The U.S. policies like the "Remain in Mexico" program pose serious risks to the lives of asylum seekers; women and kids experience violence in camps and shelters. Both countries have received pressures to reform, but they have not been consistent. At the same time, Mexico cannot offer sufficient protection because of its institutional limitations, and the U.S. remains fixated on border control rather than the rights of immigrants. C.Protections Under CAT for Noncitizens in the U.S. and Mexico: Rights and Pathways to Citizenship Protections Under CAT in the United States Rights of CAT Beneficiaries Recipients of protection under the CAT in the U.S. are protected against deportation to certain countries where they can be subjected to torture. This protection is very important in cases of people who have fled their homes to escape persecution by oppressive and or violative societies to be told that they cannot be returned to undergo torture or inhuman treatment. However, it is less comprehensive than the protection provided to applicants with asylum status in a foreign country. Therefore, beneficiaries cannot be granted the CAT if they intend to be permanent residents and cannot apply for a green card within the CAT status. Further, although those who have been granted CAT protection in the U.S. do not have the same rights as the asylum seekers who can apply for green cards after a year of asylum, for instance, CAT beneficiaries receive few entitlements granted to asylees, such as employment permits or social services. They also have restrictions regarding granting immigration rights such as family reunification and other immigration benefits in this process because CAT does not contain the same rights for the processes. This absence of additional rights implies that many persons under CAT protection remain in a legal vulnerability and cannot be incorporated into the United States with full rights and privileges granted to refugees or asylum seekers. Pathways to Citizenship CAT protection allows persons to stay in the United States, although the regime does not directly lead to citizenship acquisition. Although asylum seekers can apply for a green card after one year of receiving protection and possibly apply for naturalization, only other ways can legal permanent residents be sought by persons granted CAT protection. For instance, they might be forced to apply for asylum, which they never had, or seek other humanitarian protection like TPS or family-based immigration. This transition process is not easy, and it characterizes many struggles since one is in a highly bureaucratic structure without funds or an attorney. Moreover, even if CAT beneficiaries can transition into asylum or residency status, the road to U.S. citizenship is long and arduous: at a minimum, it takes five years to be a legal permanent resident of the United States for qualification to naturalize; there are also different conditions a person needs to meet in order to demonstrate good moral character, plus language and knowledge tests. While receiving CAT, during this time CAT-protected individuals become subject to permanent residence obtaining and U.S. citizenship, which is in any case several-year process where they will stand powerless to do anything in attempting to influence U.S. legislation on immigration issues, whereas in this context, the above statement indicates that the beneficiaries of CAT are not warranted by any future and background at all in the United States. III. Protections Under CAT in Mexico Rights of CAT Beneficiaries In light of these events, being a party to the CAT places on Mexico the legal obligation of preventing torture for the protection of non-nationals and making sure that any non-citizen or alien shall not be returned, referred to as non-refoulement, to any country where it is believed they might be tortured. In such contexts, individuals who find protection in the CAT are legally able to stay within Mexico and without the fear of repatriation find themselves being returned to such an environment that it would indeed most likely lead to them experiencing harm. Hence, legal protection for refugees and the current Law on Refugees and Complementary Protection of Mexico protect the security of individuals who meet the prerequisites of receiving the CAT. These protections may be temporary when the individuals are in Mexico but are vital for those escaping violence, political persecution, or torture in their home countries. Moreover, besides protection from deportation, beneficiaries of treatment by CAT in Mexico can get some basic rights, including the right to obtain humanitarian visas, work permission, and health care services. These rights afford CAT beneficiaries some modicum of privacy and stability. At the same time, they wait for their cases to be processed or stay in the country under one form of shelter or another. However, having reduced rights, such as limited possibilities of obtaining a permanent residency or the full range of social benefits, many immigrants still need to be in socially vulnerable positions and struggle with the process of integration into Mexico. However, even with these provisions, several people remained helped withing their standing in the country's future. Pathways to Citizenship In contrast, in the United States, CAT protection does not offer a direct one-stop route to permanent residency or citizenship, unlike Mexico, which has a more straightforward way to citizenship for those granted asylum or complementary status. Currently, asylum seekers in Mexico can apply for refugee status, and if approved, they can apply for permanent residency after five years. Moreover, Mexico's CAT permits even those granted complementary status for legal stay—as opposed to asylum—to enjoy the same rights as refugees, and these people can gain permanent residency after several years. This offers an organized pattern of implementing equality for these individuals under CAT protection with a clear pathway to attaining legal status in Mexico. Nevertheless, those recipients of temporary protection through CAT may suffer limitations and challenges when attaining a permanent legal status or citizenship. Currently, the asylum system is a concern in Mexico, and many people who are given temporary protection status, especially those in transit within the country, struggle to access the systems. They are allowed temporary humanitarian visas or working permission but do not have a certain, easy route to permanent immigration. Those migrants just passing through Mexico while waiting for a decision on their asylum cases or as transmigrants in transit to other destinations are not guaranteed a steady, long-term legal status in Mexico and can find it challenging to gain permanent residency. This leaves many CAT beneficiaries in a rather vulnerable legal and social status. VI. Recommendations for Reform A. Recommendations for Mexico Strengthening Institutional Capacity To enhance Mexican compliance with the provisions of the CAT and the protection afforded to asylum seekers, Mexico should increase the COMAR's institutional capacity. This could be done by enhancing funding and resources so that the asylum claims can be dealt with expeditiously. Further, opening new offices to reduce overcrowding in locations with a large influx of migrants, especially in the Chiapas and Oaxaca regions, would help distribute the load and increase the availability of asylum services. Better cooperation between COMAR, NGOs, and international organizations like the UNHCR may also improve the protection of asylum seekers and their compliance with legal requirements. By introducing better cooperation and guaranteeing the efficient usage of different resources, Mexico will be able to meet the requirements of CAT and treat asylum seekers more kindly. Legislative and Judicial Reforms Mexico must undertake multiple judicial and legislative changes to enhance the asylum promises to correspond to CAT's requirements. First, pretrial legal representation should be increased for such categories of people as unaccompanied minors and survivors of sexual and gender-based violence to provide them with a fair hearing. Second, there is the need to undertake changes that would seek to increase the independence and responsibility of immigration judges so that they perform their duties without much interference from politicians or institutions. Another measure of compliance regards enhancing the authority of the Mexican courts in CAT protection enforcement. Such reforms will improve legal aid and equity for asylum seekers and encourage a judicial process that complies with international human rights law . B. Recommendations for the United States Reforming Asylum Caps and Judicial Processes The United States should reevaluate the asylum caps put in place by the Trump administration and reconsider how torture is defined beneath American law about the CAT's broader definitions. Further asylum barriers can be illustrated through the mentioned lowered caps and measures that encourage the deportation of refugees from torture countries. Better compliance with CAT would be achieved if asylum applications could be lodged and fairly heard without much restriction. Furthermore, the United States immigration court backlogs since 2022, with more than 1.5 million cases, have contributed greatly to the delay when addressing asylum seekers' claims, including CAT protection. To this end, more immigration judges and better caseload management could minimize additional delays and unfair rejection of asylum applications. Restoring CAT Protections To enhance compliance with the Convention Against Torture (CAT) to the maximum level, the United States needs to repeal or modify measures such as Title 42 and the Migrant Protection Protocols that have limited refugees' opportunity to seek asylum. Under these policies, the U.S. has been steering off protection to people who are tortured or receive inhumane treatment in their countries of origin. Legal processes should be instituted to stop asylum seekers from being returned to danger because migrating through Mexico and other transit countries is dangerous. Moreover, developing independent entities to supervise asylum decisions and maintain that CAT standards are applied consistently across the governmental hierarchy may reduce arbitrary decisions and enhance accountability. C. International Cooperation Mexico and the United States should discuss the possibility of a conclusion to bilateral agreements to enhance the standard of asylum procedures, control the volume of migration flows, and address the issue of sharing CAT responsibilities across the border. They might help share resources, information, and ideas about handling asylum claims and protecting populations that need assistance. Better cooperation in infrastructure, especially in regions they share, can allow both countries to control the influx of people seeking asylum and must not send an individual back to a country where torture or inhuman treatment is bound to be encountered. Secondly, organizations such as the UNHCR can strengthen these bilateral relationships through mediation and helping the parties adhere to international law and policy. Thus, enhancing cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico is necessary to address numerous factors that hamper asylum procedures and bolster asylum protection within the parties in agreement with CAT. Conclusion The legal comparison of the asylum law and conformance with the CAT in Mexico and the USA shows that both countries are committed to the international protection of refugees. Still, the problems and strategies are rather distinct. Due to inadequate funding, logistical challenges, and the challenge of having to deal with asylum seekers in transit, Mexico's institutional constraints prevent it from effectively adhering to CAT. On the other hand, has a better-developed asylum system; however, its policies and laws, including the 'Remain in Mexico' and 'Title 42', have weakened the status of asylum seekers and put pressure on the U.S. to meet its obligations under CAT. Comparing the policies of the two countries shows where limited institutional capacity meets policy restrictions as two hurdles that hinder the capacity of affording protection to individuals at risk of torture. Nevertheless, both countries can do a lot to enhance the asylum policies that would provide adequate protection for refugees and asylum seekers. To improve compliance with the CAT, Mexico needs to build up institutional capacity, increase cooperation with the UNHCR and improve judicial protection of asylum seekers. First, the U.S. must revisit the period of restrictive policies, enhance its asylum procedures, and reintroduce full CAT safeguards to meet its international legal requirements. However, both countries should try to respect human rights and asylum seekers' safety. However, changes in such policies must be discussed on the domestic level as well as at the international level. In conclusion, it remains imperative to fix the gaps in asylum law and practice in Mexico and the U.S. Compliance with CAT is necessary, along with guaranteeing safety to those who risked their lives escaping torture and persecution. Given the current changes in the global refugee environment, both countries need to adjust their asylum policy to reflect their recognition of human rights and international law. Despite the problems, there is an opportunity for change. With sustained action, both Mexico and the United States can develop fairer, more effective, and less traumatic structures for individuals fleeing violence and exploitation.   References “Annual Results Report.” Annual Results Report | 2022 | Mexico, report, 3 May 2023, pp. 2–3. reporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/AME%20-%20Mexico.pdf. Aka, P. C. Nasrallah v. Barr (U.S. Sup. Ct.), 59 Int'l Legal Materials 895 (2020), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1432_e2pg.pdf. Akram, Susan M. & Elizabeth Ruddick. A Comparative Perspective on Safe Third and First Country of Asylum Policies in the United Kingdom and North America: Legal Norms, Principles, and Lessons Learned, 40 BU Int'l L.J. 79 (2022), https://www.bu.edu/ilj/files/2022/08/Vol.-40.1-Akram-Ruddick.pdf. Annual Results Report. Annual Results Report | 2022 | Mexico, at 2–3 (May 3, 2023), https://reporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/AME%20-%20Mexico.pdf. Buatte, Trent. The Convention Against Torture and Non-Refoulement in U.S. Courts, 35 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 701 (2020), https://www.law.georgetown.edu/immigration-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2021/07/01-Buatte-GT-GILJ210041.pdf. Congressional Research Service. (2022). U.S. Immigration Courts and the Pending Cases Backlog. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47077 (1.5) Isaac, Abigail. The Gendered Consequences of Seeking Asylum in U.S.-Mexico Border Encampments, 2.1 Crossings: An Undergraduate Arts J. 92 (2022), https://crossingsjournal.ca/index.php/crossings/article/view/92. Johanson, Emily J. The Migrant Protection Protocols: A Death Knell for Asylum, 11 UC Irvine L. Rev. 873 (2020), https://escholarship.org/content/qt6n5128wz/qt6n5128wz.pdf. O'Neill, Erin & Pérez, Diego. Connecting Theory to Reality: A Critique of Existing Migration Governance Frameworks, PI SIGMA ALPHA (2024), at 7, https://pisigmaalpha.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/PSAJournal_S2024_51pp_Final_SinglePgs.pdf#page=7. Patrikyan, Nina Ivanovna. Migrant Detention Centers in the United States and the Treatment of Children: Do the Practices Violate International Conventions and National Law? (MS thesis, Universidade Catolica Portuguesa, 2020), https://www.proquest.com/openview/5946f789d34edcfba343ebbaf1b7da2e/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2026366&diss=y. Petrie, Eliza. A Report on the United States Asylum Policies under the Trump Administration: Central America vs. Mexico and the Arbitrary Politics that Influence a Strong Asylum Claim (2020), https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1822&context=theses. Petrie, Eliza. A Report on the United States Asylum Policies under the Trump Administration: Central America vs. Mexico and the Arbitrary Politics that Influence a Strong Asylum Claim (2020), The Lancet, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(23)00119-9/fulltext. ReliefWed. Mexico at a Crossroads Once More: Emigration Levels Off as Transit Migration and Immigration Rise - Mexico. ReliefWeb, (23 May 2024), reliefweb.int/report/mexico/mexico-crossroads-once-more-emigration-levels-transit-migration-and-immigration-rise. von Staden, Andreas. The Conditional Effectiveness of Soft Law: Compliance with the Decisions of the Committee Against Torture, 23.4 Human Rights Rev. 451 (2022), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12142-022-00653-5. Welch, Anna & Kim, SangYeob. Non-State Actors under Color of Law: Closing a Gap in Protection under the Convention Against Torture, 35 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 117 (2022), https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1138&context=faculty-publications.

Article 7 obligates the government of the state in which the alleged offense occurred to either prosecute the accused party, or extradite them to a state that will, under the principle of aut dedere aut judicare.^[11]

Article 16 requires parties to prevent "other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1" in any territory under their jurisdiction. Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment and torture, the Committee regards Article 16's prohibition of such act as similarly absolute and non-derogable.^[6]

Participant	Signature	Ratification, accession (a), succession (d)
Afghanistan	4 February 1985	1 April 1987
Albania		11 May 1994 a
Algeria	26 November 1985	12 September 1989
Angola	24 September 2013	2 October 2019
Andorra	5 August 2002	22 September 2006
Antigua and Barbuda		19 July 1993 a
Argentina	4 February 1985	24 September 1986
Armenia		13 September 1993 a
Australia	10 December 1985	8 August 1989
Austria	14 March 1985	29 July 1987
Azerbaijan		16 August 1996 a
Bahamas	16 December 2008	31 May 2018
Bahrain		6 March 1998 a
Bangladesh		5 October 1998 a
Belarus	19 December 1985	13 March 1987 (as the  Byelorussian SSR)
Belgium	4 February 1985	25 June 1999
Belize		17 March 1986 a
Benin		12 March 1992 a
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)	4 February 1985	12 April 1999
Bosnia and Herzegovina		1 September 1993 d
Botswana	8 September 2000	8 September 2000
Brazil	23 September 1985	28 September 1989
Brunei Darussalam	22 September 2015
Bulgaria	10 June 1986	16 December 1986
Burkina Faso		4 January 1999 a
Burundi		18 February 1993 a
Cabo Verde		4 June 1992 a
Cambodia		15 October 1992 a
Cameroon		19 December 1986 a
Canada	23 August 1985	24 June 1987
Central African Republic		11 October 2016 a
Chad		9 June 1995 a
Chile	23 September 1987	30 September 1988
China	12 December 1986	4 October 1988
Colombia	10 April 1985	8 December 1987
Comoros	22 September 2000
Congo		30 July 2003 a
Costa Rica	4 February 1985	11 November 1993
Côte d'Ivoire		18 December 1995 a
Croatia		12 October 1992 d
Cuba	27 January 1986	17 May 1995
Cyprus	9 October 1985	18 July 1991
Czech Republic		22 February 1993 d (previously ratified by  Czechoslovakia on 7 July 1988)
Democratic Republic of the Congo		18 March 1996 a (as  Zaire)
Denmark	4 February 1985	27 May 1987
Djibouti		5 November 2002 a
Dominican Republic	4 February 1985	24 January 2012
Ecuador	4 February 1985	30 March 1988
Egypt		25 June 1986 a
El Salvador		17 June 1996 a
Equatorial Guinea		8 October 2002 a
Eritrea		25 September 2014 a
Estonia		21 October 1991 a
Ethiopia		14 March 1994 a
Fiji	1 March 2016	16 March 2016
Finland	4 February 1985	30 August 1989
France	4 February 1985	18 February 1986
Gabon	21 January 1986	8 September 2000
Gambia	23 October 1985	28 September 2018
Georgia		26 October 1994 a
Germany	13 October 1986	1 October 1990 (Signed as the  Federal Republic of Germany. The  German Democratic Republic also ratified on 9 September 1987)
Ghana	7 September 2000	7 September 2000
Greece	4 February 1985	6 October 1988
Grenada		26 September 2019 a
Guatemala		5 January 1990 a
Guinea	30 May 1986	10 October 1989
Guinea-Bissau	12 September 2000	24 September 2013
Guyana	25 January 1988	19 May 1988
Holy See		26 June 2002 a
Honduras		5 December 1996 a
Hungary	28 November 1986	15 April 1987
Iceland	4 February 1985	23 October 1996
India	14 October 1997
Indonesia	23 October 1985	28 October 1998
Iraq		7 July 2011 a
Ireland	28 September 1992	11 April 2002
Israel	22 October 1986	3 October 1991
Italy	4 February 1985	12 January 1989, 5 July 2017 a[12]
Japan		29 June 1999 a
Jordan		13 November 1991 a
Kazakhstan		26 August 1998 a
Kenya		21 February 1997 a
Kiribati		22 July 2019 a
Kuwait		8 March 1996 a
Kyrgyzstan		5 September 1997 a
Lao People's Democratic Republic	21 September 2010	26 September 2012
Latvia		14 April 1992 a
Lebanon		5 October 2000 a
Lesotho		12 November 2001 a
Liberia		22 September 2004 a
Libya		16 May 1989 a (then Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)
Liechtenstein	27 June 1985	2 November 1990
Lithuania		1 February 1996 a
Luxembourg	22 February 1985	29 September 1987
Madagascar	1 October 2001	13 December 2005
Malawi		11 June 1996 a
Maldives		20 April 2004 a
Mali		26 February 1999 a
Malta		13 September 1990 a
Marshall Islands		12 March 2018 a
Mauritania		17 November 2004 a
Mauritius		9 December 1992 a
Mexico	18 March 1985	23 January 1986
Monaco		6 December 1991 a
Mongolia		24 January 2002 a
Montenegro		23 October 2006 d
Morocco	8 January 1986	21 June 1993
Mozambique		14 September 1999 a
Namibia		28 November 1994 a
Nauru	12 November 2001	26 September 2012
Nepal		14 May 1991 a
Netherlands	4 February 1985	21 December 1988
New Zealand	14 January 1986	10 December 1989
Nicaragua	15 April 1985	5 July 2005
Niger		5 October 1998 a
Nigeria	28 July 1988	28 June 2001
Norway	4 February 1985	9 July 1986
Pakistan	17 April 2008	3 June 2010
Palau	20 September 2011
State of Palestine		2 April 2014 a
Oman		9 June 2020 a
Panama	22 February 1985	24 August 1987
Paraguay	23 October 1989	12 March 1990
Peru	29 May 1985	7 July 1988
Philippines		18 June 1986 a
Poland	13 January 1986	26 July 1989
Portugal	4 February 1985	9 February 1989
Qatar		11 January 2000 a
Republic of Korea [South]		9 January 1995 a
Republic of Moldova		28 November 1995 a
Romania		18 December 1990 a
Russian Federation	10 December 1985	3 March 1987 (ratified as the  Soviet Union)
Rwanda		15 December 2008 a
Saint Kitts and Nevis		21 September 2020 a
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines		1 August 2001 a
Samoa		28 March 2019 a
San Marino	18 September 2002	27 November 2006
São Tomé and Príncipe	6 September 2000	10 January 2017
Saudi Arabia		23 September 1997 a
Senegal	4 February 1985	21 August 1986
Serbia		12 March 2001 d (ratified as the  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia;  SFR Yugoslavia had previously ratified on 10 September 1991)
Seychelles		5 May 1992 a
Sierra Leone	18 March 1985	25 April 2001
Slovakia		28 May 1993 d (previously ratified by  Czechoslovakia on 7 July 1988)
Slovenia		16 July 1993 a
Somalia		24 January 1990 a
South Africa	29 January 1993	10 December 1998
South Sudan		30 April 2015 a
Spain	4 February 1985	21 October 1987
Sri Lanka		3 January 1994 a
Sudan	4 June 1986	10 August 2021
Suriname		16 November 2021 a
Swaziland		26 March 2004 a
Sweden	4 February 1985	8 January 1986
Switzerland	4 February 1985	2 December 1986
Syrian Arab Republic		19 August 2004 a
Tajikistan		11 January 1995 a
Thailand		2 October 2007 a
North Macedonia		12 December 1994 d
Timor-Leste		16 April 2003 a
Togo	25 March 1987	18 November 1987
Tunisia	26 August 1987	23 September 1988
Turkey	25 January 1988	2 August 1988
Turkmenistan		25 June 1999 a
Tuvalu		24 March 2024 a
Uganda		3 November 1986 a
Ukraine	27 February 1986	24 February 1987 (ratified as the  Ukrainian SSR)
United Arab Emirates		19 July 2012 a
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	15 March 1985	8 December 1988 (British Indian Ocean Territory not included[13])
United States of America	18 April 1988	21 October 1994[1][14] (With specific reservations detailed here.)
Uruguay	4 February 1985	24 October 1986
Uzbekistan		28 September 1995 a
Vanuatu		12 July 2011 a
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)	15 February 1985	29 July 1991
Viet Nam	7 November 2013	5 February 2015
Yemen		5 November 1991 a
Zambia		7 October 1998 a

As of 17 November 2021, there are 173 States parties. 22 UN Member States are not yet party to the convention.

The Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT), adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December 2002 and in force since 22 June 2006, provides for the establishment of "a system of regular visits undertaken by independent international and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,"^[15] to be overseen by a Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

As of April 2022, the Protocol has 76 signatories and 91 parties.^[16]

The Committee Against Torture (CAT) is a body of human rights experts that monitors implementation of the convention by State parties. The committee is one of eight UN-linked human rights treaty bodies. All state parties are obliged under the convention to submit regular reports to the CAT on how rights are being implemented. Upon ratifying the convention, states must submit a report within one year, after which they are obliged to report every four years. The Committee examines each report and addresses its concerns and recommendations to the State party in the form of "concluding observations". Under certain circumstances, the CAT may consider complaints or communications from individuals claiming that their rights under the Convention have been violated.

The CAT usually meets in April/May and November each year in Geneva. Members are elected to four-year terms by State parties and can be re-elected if nominated. The current membership of the CAT, as of June 2023:^[17]

Name	State	Term Expires
Abderrazak Rouwane	Morocco	31 December 2025
Ilvija Puce	Latvia	31 December 2023
Todd F. Buchwald	United States	31 December 2025
Maeda Naoko	Japan	31 December 2025
Claude Heller (chairperson)	Mexico	31 December 2023
Erdogan Iscan (Rapporteur)	Turkey	31 December 2023
Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov (Vice-chairperson)	Russia	31 December 2025
Ana Racu (Vice-chairperson)	Moldova	31 December 2023
Sébastien Touze (Vice-chairperson)	France	31 December 2023
Liu Huawen	China	31 December 2025

A 2021 study in the American Journal of Political Science found that countries that adopt national laws that prohibit torture (defining it in line with the standards codified in the UN Convention against Torture) subsequently experience reductions in police torture.^[18]

• Psychological torture
• European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
• International Day in Support of Victims of Torture
• International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims
• Use of torture since 1948
• World Organization Against Torture

• Carey, Henry (Chip); Mitchell, Stacey M. (2023). "Legalization of Reform of Torture Laws and Practices: Compliant, Exceptionalist, and Hybrid Types". Legalization of International Law and Politics: Multi-Level Governance of Human Rights and Aggression. Springer International Publishing. pp. 95–125. ISBN 978-3-031-17169-7.

• Official text of the Convention
• List of parties
• Optional Protocol
• U.N. Committee against Torture
• Convention Against Torture Initiative
• Human Rights Watch summary of the Convention
• List of links to other related documents
• Human Rights First; Tortured Justice: Using Coerced Evidence to Prosecute Terrorist Suspects (2008)
• Human Rights First; Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality
• International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT); What is torture? Defining torture
• Introductory note by Hans Danelius, procedural history note and audiovisual material on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in the Historic Archives of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
• UN Convention Against Torture (1984–2014) – Research Guide, UNOG Library
• UN Convention Against Torture (1984–2014) – Bibliography (Books/Articles), UNOG Library

• Committee against Torture – Jurisprudence
• CAT decisions on OHCHR
• Decisions of the Committee Against Torture