Two rules run through everything on this site. A state may not torture anyone. A state may not send anyone to a place where they face torture. Most people have never read either rule. Both are set out below, in full, in the words of the treaties and the statutes themselves.
Under each provision are the decisions that have applied it, with the citation needed to find them. Where the Coalition has not yet confirmed a decision applying a provision, the entry says Investigating rather than leaving a blank.
Nothing on this page is advice about anyone’s case. It is the text of the law, and the record of where it has been applied.
1. The United Nations Convention against Torture
Adopted 10 December 1984 and in force since 26 June 1987, with 176 States parties. The authentic text is held by the depositary, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. For what each state carved out when it ratified, see What each state accepted under the Convention.
What torture means
Article 1(1). “For the purposes 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.”
Where this definition is carried into national law: the United States regulation at 8 C.F.R. 1208.18(a)(1), the United Kingdom offence at section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and the Australian offence at section 274.2 of the Criminal Code. All three are set out in full further down this page, so the wording can be compared.
No exception, ever
Article 2(2). “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”
Applied in: Committee against Torture, General Comment No. 2, CAT/C/GC/2, paragraph 5. “Article 2, paragraph 2, provides that the prohibition against torture is absolute and non-derogable. It emphasizes that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked by a State Party to justify acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. The Convention identifies as among such circumstances a state of war or threat thereof, internal political instability or any other public emergency. This includes any threat of terrorist acts or violent crime as well as armed conflict, international or non-international.”
Carried into national law: Australia, Criminal Code section 274.4, set out below.
The prohibition on sending a person into danger
Article 3(1). “No State Party shall expel, return (‘refouler’) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”
Article 3(2). “For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.”
Applied in: Agiza v. Sweden, Committee against Torture, communication no. 233/2003, CAT/C/34/D/233/2003, decision of 20 May 2005. The Committee decided “that the facts before it constitute breaches by the State party of articles 3 and 22 of the Convention”. The complainant had been expelled to Egypt on the strength of assurances given by the Egyptian government.
Tebourski v. France, communication no. 300/2006, CAT/C/38/D/300/2006, decision of 1 May 2007. The Committee “concludes that the deportation of the complainant to Tunisia was a violation of articles 3 and 22 of the Convention”.
What article 3 requires in practice, including where a person is routed through a second country, is set out on the Refoulement page.
Treatment that falls short of torture
Article 16(1). “Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
This is why every designation on this site names which of the two articles it rests on. A state should not be able to answer a finding of ill-treatment by denying torture. For a finding the Coalition has recorded under this article, see Australia.
How an individual complains
Article 22(1). “A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration.”
The second sentence is the one that decides whether this route exists for a given person. Which states have made the declaration, and which made the article 21 declaration instead, is on What each state accepted under the Convention.
2. The same rule in other treaties
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 7
Article 7. “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”
Applied in: Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, paragraph 12. The obligation to respect and ensure Covenant rights “entails an obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory, where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, either in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed.”
The last clause is the one that reaches third-country removals. It covers the second country as well as the first.
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, article 33
Article 33(1). “No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
Article 33(2). “The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.”
Read the two paragraphs together. Article 33 carries an exception in its second paragraph. Article 3 of the Convention against Torture, set out above, contains no equivalent paragraph. These are two different protections with two different texts, and they are often spoken of as though they were one.
European Convention on Human Rights, article 3
Article 3. “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Applied in: Soering v. the United Kingdom, no. 14038/88, 7 July 1989: extradition to the United States would violate article 3. Chahal v. the United Kingdom, no. 22414/93, 15 November 1996: violation of article 3, in a national security case. Saadi v. Italy, no. 37201/06, Grand Chamber, 28 February 2008: expulsion to Tunisia would violate article 3. M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, no. 30696/09, Grand Chamber, 21 January 2011: violations of article 3 by Greece and by Belgium. Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, no. 27765/09, Grand Chamber, 23 February 2012: violation of article 3 for the return to Libya, and a second violation of article 3 for the risk of being sent onward from Libya to Eritrea and Somalia.
The last of those is a finding about the second country, made against the state that carried out the first transfer.
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, article 5
Article 5. “Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited.”
Applied in: Investigating.
3. The same rule in national law
United States
The provisions are reproduced here so that they can be read. The Coalition does not publish interpretation of United States law. Decisions applying them are in the register of court decisions, each one with the court’s own document attached.
8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(A), restriction on removal to a country where an alien’s life or freedom would be threatened. “Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(B), exception. “Subparagraph (A) does not apply to an alien deportable under section 1227(a)(4)(D) of this title or if the Attorney General decides that— (i) the alien ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of an individual because of the individual’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; (ii) the alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime is a danger to the community of the United States; (iii) there are serious reasons to believe that the alien committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States before the alien arrived in the United States; or (iv) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the alien is a danger to the security of the United States.”
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, section 2242(a), policy. “It shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.”
8 C.F.R. 1208.16(c)(2), burden of proof. “The burden of proof is on the applicant for withholding of removal under this paragraph to establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal. The testimony of the applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration.”
8 C.F.R. 1208.17(a), grant of deferral of removal. “An alien who: has been ordered removed; has been found under § 1208.16(c)(3) to be entitled to protection under the Convention Against Torture; and is subject to the provisions for mandatory denial of withholding of removal under § 1208.16(d)(2) or (d)(3), shall be granted deferral of removal to the country where he or she is more likely than not to be tortured.”
8 C.F.R. 1208.18(a)(1), definition of torture. “Torture is defined as 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 her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, intimidating or coercing him or her 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 acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity.”
Withholding of removal and deferral of removal under the Convention against Torture are two different things, carrying different requirements and different benefits. They are named separately in the register for that reason.
United Kingdom
Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 134(1), torture. “A public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever his nationality, commits the offence of torture if in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties.”
Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 134(6). “A person who commits the offence of torture shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.”
Human Rights Act 1998, section 6(1). “It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.”
Article 3 of the European Convention, in the words set out earlier on this page, is one of those Convention rights. It is reproduced in Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998, which is where it takes effect in United Kingdom law. For what the Coalition has recorded, see United Kingdom.
Australia
Criminal Code, section 274.2(1), torture. “A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if the perpetrator: (a) engages in conduct that inflicts severe physical or mental pain or suffering on a person (the victim); and (b) the conduct is engaged in: (i) for the purpose of obtaining from the victim or from a third person information or a confession; or (ii) for the purpose of punishing the victim for an act which the victim or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or (iii) for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the victim or a third person; or (iv) for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in subparagraph (i), (ii) or (iii); and (c) the perpetrator engages in the conduct: (i) in the capacity of a public official; or (ii) acting in an official capacity; or (iii) acting at the instigation, or with the consent or acquiescence, of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years.”
Criminal Code, section 274.4, no defence of exceptional circumstances or superior orders. “It is not a defence in a proceeding for an offence under this Division that: (a) the conduct constituting the offence was done out of necessity arising from the existence of a state of war, a threat of war, internal political instability, a public emergency or any other exceptional circumstance; or (b) in engaging in the conduct constituting the offence the accused acted under orders of a superior officer or public authority; but the circumstances referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) may, if the accused is convicted of the offence, be taken into account in determining the proper sentence.”
Migration Act 1958, section 36(2)(aa), complementary protection. A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant is “a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm”.
Migration Act 1958, section 36(1C). “A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant is not a person whom the Minister considers, on reasonable grounds: (a) is a danger to Australia’s security; or (b) having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, is a danger to the Australian community.”
Migration Act 1958, section 197C(1) and (2), relevance of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations to removal. “(1) For the purposes of section 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful non-citizen. (2) An officer’s duty to remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non-citizen under section 198 arises irrespective of whether there has been an assessment, according to law, of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations in respect of the non-citizen.”
Subsection 197C(3) then carves out a person who has made a valid protection visa application that has been finally determined and for whom a protection finding was made, unless one of three things has happened. The full subsection, and subsections (4) to (7) which define a protection finding, are in the Act itself, linked in the sources below. For what the Coalition has recorded, see Australia.
Germany
Basic Law, article 1(1). “Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.”
Residence Act, section 60(1), deportation bans, first sentence. “In application of the Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees (Federal Law Gazette 1953 II, p. 559), foreigners may not be deported to a state in which their life or liberty is threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a certain social group or political convictions.”
Residence Act, section 60(2). “Foreigners may not be deported to a state where they face serious harm as referred to in section 4 (1) of the Asylum Act.”
Residence Act, section 60(5). “A foreigner may not be deported if deportation is prohibited under the terms of the Convention of 4 November 1950 for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Federal Law Gazette 1952 II, p. 685).”
Subsection (5) is the sentence that carries article 3 of the European Convention, set out earlier on this page, into German deportation decisions. For what the Coalition has recorded, see Germany.
Where these texts come from
Every provision on this page was read against the source beside it on 14 September 2026. Nothing here is quoted from a secondary summary.
Treaties
Convention against Torture, certified text held by the United Nations depositary: treaties.un.org.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, certified text: treaties.un.org.
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, certified text: treaties.un.org.
European Convention on Human Rights, article 3, as enacted in Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998: legislation.gov.uk.
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, text published by the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights: african-court.org.
Decisions and general comments
Committee against Torture, General Comment No. 2, CAT/C/GC/2: docs.un.org.
Agiza v. Sweden, CAT/C/34/D/233/2003: docs.un.org.
Tebourski v. France, CAT/C/38/D/300/2006: docs.un.org.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13: docs.un.org.
Soering v. the United Kingdom: HUDOC 001-57619.
Chahal v. the United Kingdom: HUDOC 001-58004.
Saadi v. Italy: HUDOC 001-85276.
M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece: HUDOC 001-103050.
Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy: HUDOC 001-109231.
National law
8 U.S.C. 1231, including the section 2242 note: govinfo.gov.
8 C.F.R. part 1208: ecfr.gov.
Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 134: legislation.gov.uk.
Human Rights Act 1998, section 6: legislation.gov.uk.
Criminal Code (Australia), compilation of 30 June 2026: legislation.gov.au.
Migration Act 1958 (Australia), compilation of 4 June 2026: legislation.gov.au.
Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, official English translation: gesetze-im-internet.de.
Residence Act (Germany), official English translation: gesetze-im-internet.de.
The German provisions are quoted from the official English translations published by the Federal Ministry of Justice. The binding text in each case is the German original.