Prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment from an extraterritorial perspective 2015, para. 29

Paragraph

Paragraph text: The Convention's drafting history reveals a preoccupation with balancing the practicability of implementing its provisions rather than an intent to limit the ability to hold States responsible for extraterritorial acts of torture or ill-treatment or to dilute the strength of its applicability. From the original phrasing of the 1978 draft by Sweden, four provisions - articles 11, (5) (1) (a), 5 (2) and 7 (1) - were in fact broadened during drafting from initial reference to "territory" to "any territory under its jurisdiction", with the initial reference to territory alone being rejected as too restrictive. In article 2 (1), the addition of "territory" to the initial reference to "jurisdiction" was intended to avoid the Convention's applicability being triggered by the nationality principle alone. There is also support for the argument that the same formulation was adopted in articles 12, 13 and 16 to ensure textual consistency. That the drafting history reveals changes from references to both "jurisdiction" and "territory" alone to "any territory under its jurisdiction" can be understood to reflect practical concerns rather than a wish to limit the Convention's extraterritorial applicability. A literal reading of the Convention's jurisdictional clauses clearly contradicts its object and purpose and gives rise to impermissible loopholes in its protections.

Body: Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Topic(s)

Person(s) affected