The Truth Commission for Ayotzinapa

By: Ana Luz Manzano Ortiz, PILPG-NL Junior Research Associate

Abel, Aberlardo, Adán, Alexander, Antonio, Benjamín, Bernardo, Carlos Iván, Carlos Lorenzo, César, Christian Alfonso, Christian Tomás, Cutberto, Dorian, Emiliano, Everardo, Felipe, Giovanni, Israel Caballero, Israel Jacinto, Jesús, Jhosivani, Jonás, Jorge Álvarez, Jorge Aníbal, Jorge Antonio, Jorge Luis, José Ángel Campos, José Ángel Navarrete, José Eduardo, José Luis, Julio César, Leonel, Luis Ángel Abarca, Luis Ángel Francisco, Madgaleno, Marcial, Marco, Martín, Mauricio, Miguel Ángel Hernández, Miguel Ángel Mendoza and Saúl were the names of the 43 students of the Escuela Normal de Ayotzinapa (“Rural Teacher School of Ayotzinapa”) who disappeared on the night of the October 26, 2014 in Iguala, Guerrero, Mexico. 

More than eight years later, the investigation keeps developing due to the efforts of the students’ families who have brought numerous national and international actors into the scene. As a result of their efforts, Mexican President López Obrador created a truth commission in December 2018 to support the investigation of the Ayotzinapa case, the first of its kind in Mexico. The present blog will analyze the role of this newly created truth commission, based on the newest report of the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts (GIEI) appointed by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights.

Truth Commissions in Transitional Justice

Truth is one of the key elements of transitional justice, which establishes that individuals and societies have the right to know what has happened during a conflict. Truth-seeking initiatives investigate past human rights abuses to determine what happened, why it happened, and to what effect in order to prevent future abuses. For this reason, all around the world, truth commissions have become an essential part of transitional justice. Truth-seeking initiatives can take many forms, including freedom of information legislation, investigations into the missing, and non-judicial truth commissions.

Truth commissions have a long history in Latin America, with important examples from Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Peru. National governments  have created truth commissions within processes of peace agreements and transitional procedures with the task of investigating violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by military dictatorships or authoritarian regimes, or during internal armed conflicts. 

Mexico’s long history of forced disappearances by security forces began with  the Guerra Sucia (the “Dirty War”) of the 1980’s, and continues with the ongoing “War against drugs” that began in 2006. However the current President of Mexico has established the first truth commission to investigate one specific event: the case of the 43 students of Ayotzinapa. This could potentially be the beginning of a journey for seeking the truth in Mexico.

The investigation and the order to create a truth commission

Between the night of October 26 and the morning of October 27, 2014, a series of violent events took place in Iguala, Guerrero, resulting in the disappearance of 43 students. The students from a rural teacher school, commonly called normalistas, were preparing to bring education to the rural areas of Mexico. The normalistas of Ayotzinapa were traveling in buses to Mexico City, where they would take part in the commemoration of the massacre of the students of Tlatelolco in 1968. 

The Federal Police stopped the normalistas on a highway in Iguala, Guerrero, and shortly after, the police opened fire against them. The reason why the encounter turned violent is still unclear, but a strong hypothesis by the GIEI is that a drug cartel called Guerreros Unidos had used some of the buses to transport narcotics. Police executed six people, among them three normalistas and three other people present at the scene, and injured more than 40 during the attack. In addition, the whereabouts of the 43 missing normalistas is still unknown.

The disappearance of the normalistas sparked public outrage, and the investigation gained attention from media all over the world. The General Prosecutor of Mexico released the infamous “historical truth,” which were the results of his investigation of the event. According to this version, Guerreros Unidos executed the normalistas and burned their bodies in a municipal dump. However, this version was quickly proven to be a fabrication by the investigation of the GIEI.

The GIEI arrived in Mexico after the relatives of the normalistas presented a request of interim measures to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. The relatives of the normalistas have used several other legal mechanisms, including a constitutional claim against the “historical truth,” the investigation of the Federal Prosecutor. In a historical verdict, the Tribunal Federal Colegiado (Federal Collegiate Tribunal) in charge of this claim ordered that the Mexican President, as one of the authorities responsible for the flawed investigation of the General Prosecutor, create a Truth Commission to establish the true account of the events.

The role of the truth commission in the new report of the GIEI

A Presidential Decree of December 4, 2018 created the Comisión para la Verdad del Caso Ayotzinapa (Truth Commission for the Truth of the Ayotzinapa Case). This Commission has the role of facilitating dialogue between the authorities involved in the investigation, creating a mechanism of economic incentives for the collaboration of individuals who may have information on the events,  strengthening international technical cooperation with organizations like the GIEI, and strengthening the reparation assistance to the victims of the case.

Representatives of the victims have challenged the creation of the Truth Commission, as they claim that it has no powers to take direct part in the investigations, but only to help the parties involved, namely the GIEI, the victims, and the prosecutors. Despite this, in the latest report by the GIEI, the group recognized that the Commision played an important role in advancing the investigation, as it helped the GIEI access information it did not have in previous years. One of its major findings, according to the report of GIEI, were around 60 videos that confirm that the initial detainees who were part of the “historical truth” investigation, had been tortured. For this, the GIEI has asked the Mexican state to strengthen the Commission, as a fundamental part of the fight for truth and justice for the normalistas.

In conclusion, the role of the Commission has proven to be key in the development of the investigation. With the finding of the evidence of torture during the investigation, as well as the funding and identification of human remains of two of the normalistas, the GIEI has now established that most of the “historical truth” never took place. The search for truth by the Commission is not only fundamental for the victims of Ayotzinapa, but for all of the Mexican society who were led by false information in the past. In a country where impunity has hurt its population for so long, to find the truth is only necessary.

Riding the wave of the recognition of the rights of Nature in Europe: The case of "El Mar Menor"

By: Guillermo Ferrer Hernáez, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

Human activity is altering the planet's natural ecosystems, which could lead to their disappearance and that of the living beings that inhabit them. Efforts to avoid this disastrous situation are leading to the implementation of novel global actions for the defense of ecosystems, such as the recognition of the rights of natural elements and ecosystems. 

On April 5, 2022, the Spanish Congress of Deputies approved the processing of a law promoted by the Iniciativa Legislativa Popular (ILP) Mar Menor with the support of a petition with 640,000 signatures collected throughout the state, granting legal personality to Mar Menor, a saltwater lagoon. If the plenary of the Spanish Congress of Deputies approves this bill in the following months, it would be the first legal recognition of the personhood of an ecosystem in Europe. This blog will analyze the case of Mar Menor as a possible first recognition of a natural entity as a legal person in Europe and will assess the possible impact of this recognition.

The state of the Mar Menor

The Mar Menor is the largest saltwater lagoon in Europe, located on the coast of the Region of Murcia, Spain. This natural treasure is seriously threatened by an excess of nutrients in its waters, a process known as eutrophication. Fertilized water from the surrounding crops and desalination plants, loaded with nitrates, reaches the Mar Menor, where it feeds and nourishes phytoplankton. When this type of algae in the Mar Menor proliferates, it blocks the light to the plants that grow on the seabed, preventing photosynthesis and causing them to die. In turn, the death of these plants means a lack of oxygen in the waters of this sea affecting the fauna that inhabits the Mar Menor, causing ecological disasters like the one in October 2019 in which tons of dead fish were removed.

This ecological crisis highlights the current legal protection system's failure, which has not prevented the continued discharge of polluted waters. For this reason, Spanish citizens have decided to mobilize to protect and preserve this natural ecosystem. 

The bill recognizes the legal entity of this ecosystem

Faced with the inaction of the Spanish authorities, a group of lawyers, scientists, and activists, with the support of the Legal Clinic of the University of Murcia, started a movement under the name of ILP Mar Menor to protect the lagoon by drafting a bill.  The association behind the bill has highlighted the need to preserve the lagoon's ecological value and guarantee intergenerational solidarity in line with international conventions such as the Paris Agreement.

This new bill includes the possibility of granting legal personality to the Mar Menor lagoon ecosystem, which would mean that it would be considered a subject of law.  This new juridical status would grant the lagoon with subjective rights, limiting its private use and enabling any citizen to enforce these rights in court.  In addition, the Mar Menor would thus become the only natural entity in Europe that functions as a subject of law. This could be a precedent for the recognition of other endangered natural entities’ rights within Spain and Europe. Nevertheless, authorities would still need to recognize the legal personality of these endangered natural entities individually or collectively in their national systems. In the Spanish case, the Spanish Parliament would still need to recognize the possibility of extending the legal personality to other endangered entities in national law.

According to the bill, the legal representation and guardianship of the lagoon would be exercised through an authority that would include representatives of public administrations; members of universities, research, and scientific centers; and residents of local municipalities. Public administrations have an obligation to conserve, preserve, and restore this ecosystem. If the administration does not fulfill this duty, this new legal authority could demand criminal and administrative action before Spanish tribunals. In addition, any citizen would be able to demand reparations from those responsible for the damages produced in the lagoon before the Spanish courts. In this regard, this blog will take the example of the Latin American states to see how natural ecosystems can be protected through citizen initiatives.

Examples from Latin American states

The Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, which came into force in October 2008, revolutionized the concept of Nature as a subject of law in the Latin American region. The constitutional recognition of the legal personality of Nature, also known as Pachamama, includes the possibility for any person, community, or people to demand from the public authority the fulfillment of the rights of Nature.

This same idea has inspired many Latin American states, such as Chile, which have recently included the same provisions in their constitutions. These initiatives go further than other attempts to protect the rights of Nature, such as the Escazú Agreement, and set an example for other states around the world, such as Spain, to follow.

Latin American NGOs and citizens have made use of the recognition of the subjectivity of these ecosystems and their consequent rights to sue the authorities for not preserving the wellbeing of these ecosystems. However, in many cases, such as in Ecuador, the recognition of the Rights of Nature has not been able to stop the abusive exploitation of these ecosystems with the value of subjects of rights. The recognition of the subjectivity of these ecosystems establishes a starting point for their protection, but without effective enforcement mechanisms, the ultimate objective cannot be achieved.

Conclusion 

Time is running against the sustainability and welfare of the Mar Menor. If the Spanish Congress approves the bill presented by ILP, Spain will build a new path toward protecting the rights of Nature in Europe, following the example of other Latin American states. This is the first step toward protecting these ecosystems.

International criminal justice for irregular migrants? The case of Libya regarding atrocities committed at detention camps

By: Ana Luz Manzano Ortiz, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

Abuses committed or tolerated by authorities against foreigners with an unauthorized stay, also referred to as “irregular migrants,” are common. Cases like these have mostly been litigated by civil organizations under human rights law. However, there are situations where international criminal law can also serve as a tool to seek justice. An example of this is Libya, where NGOs have denounced militias’ practices of targeting irregular migrants through torture, kidnappings, forced recruitment, and killings. 

In order to seek accountability for this situation, NGOs have asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate the situation in Libya. On January 17, 2022, a group of NGOs, composed of Adala for All, StraLi, and UpRights, presented a communication under Article 15 of the Rome Statute to the ICC, asking the Office of the Prosecutor to investigate potential crimes in Libya. This contribution examines the turn from international human rights law (IHRL) to international criminal law (ICL) in light of this particular situation in Libya.

The situation in Libya 

Libya has become one of the predominantly cited examples of abuse committed with impunity as a result of pushback policies, aimed at deterring migrants from reaching Europe through unauthorized sea routes. Due to its geographical location, Libya is a transit state through which each year an estimated 180,000 people from multiple states, mainly Eritrea, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Syria, Palestine, and Iraq, travel on their way to Europe. In order to keep these individuals from reaching the European Union (EU), the EU Agency known as “Frontex,” as well as the Italian and the Maltese governments, provide funds, training, and boats to the Libyan Coast Guard. However, the armed conflict that has taken place in Libya for a decade has complicated and worsened the situation, as militias have become involved in these border control operations.

According to the latest report of the UN Support Mission in Libya, “more than 12,000 detainees are held in 27 prisons and places of detention across Libya.” However, thousands of additional detainees do not appear in official statistics and are held illegally and often in inhumane conditions in facilities controlled by armed groups, or “secret” facilities, unable to challenge the legal basis for their continued detention. It has been well-documented that serious abuses occur in these detention centers, such as ill-treatment, torture, sexual violence, forced labor, forced disappearance, and murder, all in the context of indefinite detention in inhuman conditions. According to Alessandro Pizzuti, co-founder of UpRights, in Libya the parties to the conflict target migrants because they perceive them as a crucial resource for carrying out their political and military objectives. 

Human rights violations or international crimes?

IHRL and ICL are part of public international law, and their scope covers the relationship between individuals and the state. Both of them deal with abuses committed by state officials, either through their acquiescence, their omission to comply with their obligations or through their direct actions. Their enforcement is primarily the responsibility of national authorities. ICL’s scope is, in fact, broader and also imposes obligations on non-state actors. The application of IHRL and ICL is not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, these specialized branches of law converge and are interdependent on each other. However, IHRL relates to the responsibility of the state, while ICL is concerned with individual criminal responsibility. Therefore, there are different mechanisms through which they can be enforced whenever domestic remedies have failed to be effective.

Under IHRL, several international judicial bodies have been created around the world: the European Court of Human Rights, the African Court of Human Rights, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are the main examples of these. The United Nations has also developed ten quasi-judicial treaty bodies that observe the enforcement of their corresponding human rights treaties, such as the United Nations Committee Against Torture, the Human Rights Committee, and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, among others. These are the main regional and international mechanisms through which individuals can seek redress when they believe there has been a violation of their human rights.

Under ICL, the main judicial body is the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is an independent tribunal governed by the Rome Statute with jurisdiction over war crimes (WC), crimes against humanity (CAH), and genocide committed or tolerated by state and non-state actors from states party to the Rome Statute, or committed on the territory of a state party. Other ad hoc courts have previously been created to investigate specific situations in a state, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Trying to access redress under ICL has important consequences, both practical and symbolic. On the practical side, it can be much more difficult to access justice at the ICC, in contrast to other international human rights judicial bodies. In the history of the ICC, the Office of the Prosecutor has opened twelve official investigations and is currently conducting an additional nine preliminary examinations, and only 46 individuals have been indicted. On the other hand, in 2021 alone the European Court of Human Rights released 1,105 judgments. Additionally, the heightened burden of proof in ICL means that cases tend to focus on specific incidents, perpetrators, and victims, whereas IHRL cases can be much broader in scope. Even if a case is brought, victims under ICL may be excluded just because there is less evidence concerning the specific incident in which they were victimized, which may not be the case in a court of human rights. However, on the symbolic side, justice is reached in different terms under IHRL and ICL. Whereas human rights judicial bodies reach judgments that condemn states in abstract terms, ICL has the potential to point to the individual responsibilities of the persons who commit the crimes. 

Until now, the abuses committed in Libya against irregular migrants have been addressed under IHRL. In the case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy of the European Court of Human Rights, the situation in detention centers was recognized to amount to ill-treatment under Article 3 of the ECHR, enough to condemn Italy for returning people at sea to Libya. This has been a positive development for migrant and refugee rights in Europe; however, under the framework of IHRL, only the state of Italy was condemned for the push-back operation, and not the individual officers who participated in the operation nor the authorities in charge of the detention centers where abuses were being committed. The victims of this case did not get to see the people who mistreated them on trial, nor do they have any assurance that they faced any consequence for their actions.

The group of NGOs that presented the communication to the ICC argue that the case of the situation in the Libyan detention centers amounts not only to a mass violation of human rights but also to crimes against humanity and war crimes. Under this logic, the situation now also falls under ICL. If the situation in Libya is to be investigated by the ICC, individual responsibilities could arise for the authorities implicated in the operations of migrant detention centers. 

Conclusion

The consequences of shifting from international human rights law to international criminal law to seek accountability for the ongoing situation in Libyan detention centers could be many, but one stands out: having the ICC criminally investigate the people responsible for the crimes being committed at the gates of Europe. 

Regulatory Approaches to genetically modified organisms in the EU and Australia

By: Lilian Srour, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

For thousands of years, humans have selected the plants and animals with the most desirable characteristics to yield the next generations of food and feed. These desirable characteristics came about through naturally occurring variations in the genetic build of those plants and animals. However, in recent years, modern biotechnology techniques, also known as gene technologies, have made it possible to modify the genetic building blocks of living cells and organisms. Essentially, these gene technologies allow for  the artificial modification of genetic material to give organisms new characteristics, such as increasing a plant’s resistance to environmental pressures, diseases, or insects. Such organisms are also known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). 

Over the years, as gene editing technologies have become more advanced and widely utilized, states have adopted regulatory frameworks governing GMOs. At present, there is no uniformity in the overall regulatory approaches to gene editing technologies and the sale of GMO foods and feed. A report issued in 2021 by the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency has shed light on the diversity of approaches. This blog takes a closer look at the regulatory framework in the European Union (EU) and Australia in relation to GMOs and genetically modified (GM) food and feed, to exemplify the different approaches when it comes to the regulation of GMOs.  

The EU 

The EU regulatory framework is premised on principles relating to pre-market authorization based on a prior risk assessment, traceability of GMOs through production and distribution chains, and labeling of GMOs on the market. Currently, Directive 2001/18/EC (GMO Directive) regulates the authorization of deliberate, and experimental, releases and the placing of GMOs on the market. This Directive requires a risk assessment of GMOs intended for release into the environment. The authorization procedure for food and feed can be found under a separate Regulation. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is the risk assessment body that ensures that authorizations are only issued when it identifies no risks for health or the environment. In the authorization procedure, the regulatory framework ensures a high level of transparency whereby information on the applications for authorization, supplementary information provided by applicants, and opinions from the risk assessment authorities are made available to the public. The only exception provides for the exclusion of confidential commercial information.

Traceability and labeling requirements ensure that relevant information on GMOs is available for operators and consumers. Labeling of GMOs and traceability of GMOs and GM food and feed is defined and addressed under Regulation No (EC) 1830/2003. Specific requirements for the labeling of GM food and feed are outlined in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. These labeling requirements aim to provide consumers, farmers, and other interested parties with the freedom of choice. 

In 2018, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued its judgment in its Confédération paysanne case (C-528/16). This judgment has come under criticism from many who describe the EU’s regulatory approach as highly restrictive. This is because the ECJ stated that organisms obtained by modern directed mutagenesis techniques are to be considered as GMOs within the meaning of the GMO Directive In other words, the Court decided that under the current GMO regulatory framework, modern techniques and methods for modifying genetic material constitute a modification that does not fall under the mutagenesis exemption. 

Briefly, mutagenesis is a technology that allows for making genetic modifications which mimic spontaneous mutations that would occur naturally, despite being the result of human intervention. Generally, this would be considered a genetic modification technique. However, under recital 17 of the GMO Directive - the mutagenesis exemption - the directive does not apply to “organisms obtained through techniques of genetic modification which have conventionally been used in a number of applications” and have “a long safety record.” Thus, this judgment clarified that new genetic modification techniques that allow for targeted mutagenesis (more modern genetic technologies) interventions will not be exempt, as opposed to conventional random methods of mutagenesis which have been relied on in the past.  Hence, modifications through these modern techniques will be subject to the stringent requirements of risk assessment and authorization. On the one hand, this judgment has been characterized as a “missed opportunity for agricultural innovation in the EU.” On the other hand, many farmers and environmentalists have welcomed this decision, demonstrating support for the Union’s cautious approach when it comes to GMOs. 

Australia

In Australia, the Gene Technology Regulator (the Regulator), an independent statutory office holder, coordinates the regulation of GMOs and ensures compliance with the conditions of any approvals through inspections, monitoring, audits, and investigations. The Regulator is supported by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) which is part of the Department of Health. 

The national regulatory framework for gene technology consists of the Australian Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000 and Gene Technology Regulations 2001, and corresponding State and Territory legislation. This framework prohibits the sale of food produced using gene technology or containing ingredients produced using gene technology, unless the food is listed in Schedule 26 of the 1.5.2 Standard of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. The standard also establishes labeling requirements for food produced using gene technology. It requires that a food for sale that is produced using gene technology includes the statement “genetically modified” in conjunction with the name of the GM food. However, unlike within the EU, Standard 1.5.2 does not outline any specific requirements for traceability.

Diverging Approaches 

The aforementioned regulatory approaches are similar in many regards. However, more recently, in contrast to the ECJ’s ruling in 2018, Australia has pursued a different approach whereby it has exempted several gene editing techniques from its Gene Technology Regulations 2001. In doing so, Australia has acknowledged that these more modern techniques produce results identical to the products of conventional mutagenesis, and that more modern techniques  have comparable safety records. As mentioned before, the ECJ has held the opposite, where no such safety record can be definitively established for more modern gene editing techniques. 

Thus, those who hold that mutagenesis and modern gene editing techniques are comparable and have comparable safety records have considered the ECJ’s judgment to be unscientific, particularly in comparison to Australia’s approach. This is because Australia has exempted modern mutagenesis techniques from its regulatory framework, implying that it considered these genetic engineering techniques to be as safe as previously established cultivation methods, whereas the EU has held that this is not the case.  Furthermore, this decision has been considered problematic because organisms edited through conventional mutagenesis may be indistinguishable from organisms edited through more modern targeted mutagenesis. Thus, a product may be  subject to, or exempt from GMO regulations because of the use of a particular gene editing technology, despite there being no difference in the outcome (i.e. the final result). Seeing that other countries do not regulate such products as GMOs, and as such do not have the same restrictions and requirements, for instance in terms of traceability, this may lead to accidental imports and undermine the enforcement of the GMO regulatory framework in the EU. This is because other countries have exempted GMOs that have been edited with more modern technologies from such restrictions and labeling requirements. Thus, the EU’s approach has come under criticism from many, whereby the European Commission’s scientific advisors have recommended that the EU revise its GMO regulatory framework. 

The European Commission has recently published a study on the status of New Genomic Techniques under EU law. In light of its findings, the Commission plans to initiate a policy action on plants produced through modern targeted mutagenesis. This will involve an impact assessment and a public consultation with the aim of achieving “proportionate regulatory oversight” that would ensure high protection of human, animal, and environmental health, whilst allowing for further innovation. 

Conclusion 
Thus, whilst the regulatory frameworks in the EU and Australia are comparable, their respective approach to GMOs has become more divergent recently. Whilst Australia seems to be loosening its regulations, the EU maintains a more restrictive approach towards GMOs. In light of many calls for the EU to change or update its current regulatory framework, it remains to be seen whether the policy plans initiated by the Commission will lead to an approach similar to Australia, or whether the EU will maintain its current approach.

Syria’s New Torture Law - A Step Forward?

By: Lilian Srour, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

Over the past decade, documentation has shown that the Syrian regime has employed a systematic strategy that oppresses its citizens through the widespread use of torture perpetrated by state authorities. Many have condemned these practices, including United Nations (UN) mechanisms, such as the Security Council and the Committee Against Torture (Committee), urging Syria to cease such practices. More recently, Canada and the Netherlands have jointly announced their intentions to hold Syria to account for its human rights violations. 

Nonetheless, Syria has recently issued Law No.16 criminalizing acts of torture. Seeing that Syria is party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), this short piece takes a closer look at whether this law is in line with the provisions of the CAT, particularly Article 14 which requires that victims of torture and cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment obtain redress. 

The Prohibition of Torture and the Right to Redress

The Committee has explained that in line with Article 14 CAT the term “redress” entails both the concepts of “effective remedy” and “reparation.” The reparative concept outlined by the Committee refers to the full scope of measures required to address violations of the CAT.  In its General Comment No. 3, the Committee also underlines that the implementation and enforcement of Article 14 CAT is highly important to ensure the effective prohibition of torture. It clarified that, for states parties to be considered to provide redress in line with the provisions of the CAT, their obligations are two-fold: procedural and substantive. To fulfil their procedural obligations, states shall enact laws and establish investigation bodies, complaints mechanisms, and independent judicial bodies competent to ensure redress for torture victims. At the substantive level, states must ensure that victims obtain restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition. 

Keeping with the Committee’s General Comment, states parties are to ensure that all victims of torture or ill-treatment, regardless of when the violation occurred or whether it was carried out by a former government, have access to their rights to remedy and to effectively obtain redress. Furthermore, the Committee explicitly reinforces the absolute notion of the prohibition of torture by reiterating that under no circumstances may arguments relating to national security be relied on to deny redress for victims.

Moreover, the Committee also clarifies that states are required to investigate and criminally prosecute allegations related to acts of torture, and to refrain from interfering with proceedings regarding torture allegations. To do otherwise would constitute a denial of redress and thus a violation of a state’s obligations under Article 14 CAT. 

The Syrian Law 

Law No. 16 (2022) criminalizes torture by imposing a sentence of at least three years in prison. Aggravating circumstances, such as death through torture, or torture through rape, may allow for the imposition of the death penalty. It further outlines that state authorities cannot order the infliction of torture on anyone, and that evidence collected through torture is to be considered void. 

Whilst the criminalization of torture can be seen as in improvement, the Syrian law falls short in many regards in relation to the provisions of the CAT, particularly Article 14 CAT. Firstly, the Syrian law does not establish any independent mechanism for the oversight and enforcement of the law and its implementation. Secondly, there is legislation in force which provides immunities for employees of the State Security Department for crimes committed whilst carrying out their duties, such as Article 16 of Legislative Decree No.14 (1969). Thirdly, in line with Syria’s Penal Code, criminal laws do not apply retroactively. If this would be the case for this legislation, this would leave many individuals tortured before this date no option of redress. 

The proper enforcement and implementation of Article 14 CAT ensures for the effective prohibition of torture. As the law stands currently, victims of torture, particularly those of the last decade, do not appear to have access to effective remedies and reparations. Furthermore, the lack of independent mechanisms for the oversight and enforcement of the law, as well as the legislation in place that provides for immunities, leave Syria in arrears of the procedural and substantive obligations encompassed under the CAT and Article 14. 

Conclusion 
The Committee has previously clarified in its General Comments that specific impediments to the right to redress and the proper implementation of Article 14 include, but are not limited to, inadequate national legislation, state secrecy laws, statutes of limitations, amnesties, and immunities. In the case of Syria, several of these factors challenge the full respect and enforcement of the CAT’s provisions, especially in relation to redress for victims. Thus, whilst the promulgation of a law criminalizing torture is a step in the right direction, this should not overshadow the remaining gaps that need to be addressed, in relation to the proportionality of punishments imposed (i.e. death penalty), enforcement of the prohibition of torture, and redress for victims. It remains to be seen how and whether this law will be enforced, and how its shortcomings will be addressed.