A/77/502 derogation is permissible. 21 As such, the relevance of the concept of proportionality that may apply to qualified freedoms, or arguments around balancing the harm in question with national security or other similar interests, are ruled out as justifications for torture. Likewise, torture is not an acceptable response in the face of terrorism or other similar serious threats, and there is ample evidence to demonstrate the inherent unreliability of deploying torture techniques as a method of intelligence or information gathering. 22 The legality of the actions of the victim is immaterial. 23 This is not to say that national security interests are not valid concerns, but rather it is to recognize that, in our modern times, we have adequate and effective ways to handle such situations without recourse to torture or other ill-treatment. Disseminating humane and rights-compatible interviewing and evidence-gathering techniques will be part of the Special Rapporteur’s role. 36. The international framework, moreover, allows no person al justifications for torture or other inhuman treatment. 24 The orders of a superior officer or public authority do not exonerate from criminal liability, for example, a junior police officer who beats or harasses a suspect or witness, a prison warden who denies food, water or basic sanitation to a detainee, or a soldier who breaks the rules of war during armed conflict. Command responsibility for torture must be prosecutable, and public officials are accountable when they refuse or fail to protect citizens from harm (including the bystander phenomenon). 25 The absolute prohibition against torture permits no temporal limits on prosecution (also known as “statutes of limitations”), 26 amnesties 27 or immunities. 28 37. Lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are equally prohibited and are to be investigated and punished, commensurate with applicable penalties. They should not be underestimated as to their impact on victims or on institutional cultures in which impunity can cre ate and incentivize conditions that can escalate to insipid forms of ill-treatment or even torture. Cumulative effects of lesser cruelty, however less dramatic, can amount to torture, and negligent mistreatment or deprivations of essential rights (safety, clean water, hygiene, social interaction) of persons deprived of their liberty are never to be tolerated. __________________ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22-22673 See the report of the International Law Commission on peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens) (A/CN.4/L.967), in which “the prohibition of torture” is listed as a peremptory norm of general international law (conclusion 23). Conclusion 18 clarifies that “no circumstance precluding wrongfulness under the rules on the responsibly of States for internationally wrongful acts may be invoked with regard to any act of a State that is not in conformity with an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens)”. See, for instance, United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s detention and interrogation pr ogramme, 2014. See also Shane O’Mara, Why Torture Doesn’t Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation (Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, Harvard University Press, 2015). European Court of Human Rights, Selmouni v. France, Application No. 25803/94, Judgment of 28 July 1999. The character of the applicant is equally immaterial in non -refoulement cases; European Court of Human Rights, Soering v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 7 July 1989, paras. 86, 90–91; and European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Chahal v. United Kingdom, Application No. 22414/93, Judgment of 15 November 1996, para. 80. Convention against Torture, art. 2 (3); see also Human Rights Co mmittee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 3. Hajrizi Dzemajl et al. v. Yugoslavia (CAT/C/29/D/161/2000). Committee against Torture, general comment No. 3 (2012), para. 40; and European Court of Human Rights, Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, Application No. 32446/96, Judgment of 2 November 2004, para. 55. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007), para. 5. See the report of the International Law Commission on the work of its seventy-second session (A/76/10), chap. VI. 11/17