Order Code RL32438
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT):
Overview and Application to
Interrogation Techniques
June 16, 2004
Michael John Garcia
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT): Overview and
Application to Interrogation Techniques
Summary
The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) requires signatory parties to take
measures to end torture within their territorial jurisdiction and to criminalize all acts
of torture. Unlike many other international agreements and declarations prohibiting
torture, CAT provides a general definition of the term. CAT generally defines torture
as the infliction of severe physical and/or mental suffering committed under the color
of law. CAT allows for no circumstances or emergencies where torture could be
permitted.
The United States ratified CAT, subject to certain declarations, reservations, and
understandings, including that the Convention was not self-executing and therefore
required domestic implementing legislation to be enforced by U.S. courts. In order
to ensure U.S. compliance with CAT obligations to criminalize all acts of torture, the
United States enacted sections 2340 and 2340A of the United States Criminal Code,
which prohibit torture occurring “outside the United States” (torture occurring inside
the United States was already prohibited under several federal and state statutes of
general application prohibiting acts such as assault, battery, and murder). The
applicability and scope of these statutes were the subject of widely-reported
memoranda by the Department of Defense and Department of Justice that have been
made at least partially available by several news sites.
It does not appear that sections 2340 and 2340A would cover acts of torture
committed at U.S. facilities abroad if those acts were committed by or against U.S.
nationals. Section 2340 defines “United States” to include areas covered under U.S.
special and maritime jurisdiction, such as military facilities and other buildings in
foreign States used for U.S. governmental purposes when a U.S. national is the
offender or victim of an offense. Accordingly, sections 2340 and 2340A would
generally appear not to apply to cases of torture that might occur in such facilities,
because they are not “outside the United States” for purposes of U.S. law. A number
of separate federal statutes would nevertheless prohibit harsh mistreatment occurring
at such facilities; a detailed discussion of these laws can be found in CRS Report
RL32395, U.S. Treatment of Prisoners in Iraq: Selected Legal Issues.
Assuming for the purposes of discussion that a U.S. body had to review a harsh
interrogation method to determine whether it constituted torture under either CAT
or applicable U.S. law, it might examine international jurisprudence as to whether
certain interrogation methods constituted torture. A reviewing body might examine
decisions made by both the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee
against Torture, the monitoring body of CAT, which have examined interrogation
methods including the use of such tactics as sleep deprivation, “hooding” of detained
individuals, and subjecting detainees to loud noise to determine whether such acts
constituted torture. Although these decisions are not binding precedent for the
United States, they may inform deliberations here. This report will be updated as
events require.

---

Contents
Overview of the Convention against Torture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Definition of “Torture” under CAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CAT Requirements Concerning the Criminalization of Torture . . . . . . 3
CAT Requirements Prohibiting Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
CAT Enforcement and Monitoring Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Implementation of the Convention Against Torture in the United States . . . 5
Relevant Declarations, Reservations, and Understandings
Conditioning U.S. Ratification of the Convention
Against Torture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Criminalization of Torture Occurring Outside the United States . . . . . 7
Decisions by Non-U.S. Bodies Concerning Whether Certain
Interrogation Techniques Rise to the Level of Torture . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
British Interrogation Techniques Employed in Northern Ireland . . . . 12
Israeli Interrogation Techniques Employed Against Palestinian
Security Detainees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

---

U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT):
Overview and Application to Interrogation
Techniques
Overview of the Convention against Torture
Over the past several decades, a number of international agreements and
declarations has condemned and/or sought to prohibit the practice of torture by public
officials,1 leading some to conclude that torture is now prohibited under customary
international law.2 Perhaps the most notable international agreement prohibiting
torture is the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman,
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention or CAT),3 signed by the United
States and over 140 other countries.
Definition of “Torture” under CAT. Whereas a number of prior
international agreements and declarations condemned and/or prohibited torture, CAT
appears to be the first international agreement to actually attempt to define the term.
CAT Article 1 specifies that, for purposes of the Convention, “torture” refers to:
1 See, e.g., U.N. CHARTER art. 55 (calling upon U.N. member countries to promote
“universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for
all....”); Universal Declaration on Human Rights, UN GAOR, Supp. No. 16, at 52, UN Doc.
A/6316, at art. 5 (1948) (providing that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”); International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A, U.N. GAOR, 3rd Comm., 21st Sess., 1496th plen. mtg. at
49, U.N. Doc. A/RES/ 2200A (XXI), at art. 7 (1966) (providing that “[n]o one shall be
subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”).
2 See, e.g., Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F2d 876, 880-85 (2nd Cir. 1980) (listing numerous
sources, including the opinion of the State Department, supporting the proposition that
torture is prohibited by customary international law, and noting that despite continued
practice of torture by many countries, virtually all have renounced the practice publically,
including through international declarations and agreements); RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF
FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES § 702, Reporters note 5(d) (1987). But
see A. Mark Weisbard, Customary International Law and Torture: The Case of India, 2 CHI.
J. INT’L. L. 81 (Spring 2001) (arguing that widespread use of torture by States in certain
circumstances and general indifference of other States to the practice, despite existence of
numerous international agreements and declarations condemning torture, indicate that the
prohibition on torture has not reached the status of customary international law).
3 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, G.A. Res. 39/46, Annex, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 51, U.N. Doc. A/39/51
(1984) [hereinafter “CAT”].

---

CRS-2
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.
Importantly, this definition specifies that both physical and mental suffering can
constitute torture, and that for such suffering to constitute torture, it must be
purposefully inflicted. Further, acts of torture covered under the Convention must
be committed by someone acting under the color of law. Thus, for example, if a
private individual causes intense suffering to another, absent the instigation, consent,
or acquiescence of a public official, such action does not constitute “torture” for
purposes of CAT.
The Convention’s definition of “torture” does not include all acts of
mistreatment causing mental or physical suffering, but only those of a severe nature.
According to the State Department’s section-by-section analysis of CAT included in
President Reagan’s transmittal of the Convention to the Senate for its advice and
consent, the Convention’s definition of torture was intended to be interpreted in a
“relatively limited fashion, corresponding to the common understanding of torture
as an extreme practice which is universally condemned.”4 For example, the State
Department suggested that rough treatment falling into the category of police
brutality, “while deplorable, does not amount to ‘torture’” for purposes of the
Convention, which is “usually reserved for extreme, deliberate, and unusually cruel
practices...[such as] sustained systematic beating, application of electric currents to
sensitive parts of the body, and tying up or hanging in positions that cause extreme
pain.”5 This understanding of torture as a severe form of mistreatment is made
explicit by CAT Article 16, which obligates Convention parties to “prevent in any
territory under [their] jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment which do not amount to acts of torture,”6 thereby indicating
that not all forms of inhumane treatment constitute torture.
In general, Convention parties are obligated to take “effective legislative,
administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory
4 President’s Message to Congress Transmitting the Convention Against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Summary and Analysis of the
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, May 23, 1988, S. TREATY DOC. NO. 100-20, reprinted in 13857 U.S. Cong.
Serial Set at 3 (1990) [hereinafter “State Dept. Summary”] (emphasis added).
5 Id. at 4. Presumably, police brutality of extreme severity could rise to the level of
“torture.”
6 CAT at art. 16(2).

---

CRS-3
under [their] jurisdiction.”7 They are also forbidden from expelling, returning, or
extraditing a person to another State where there are “substantial grounds” for
believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.8
CAT Requirements Concerning the Criminalization of Torture. A
central objective of CAT was to criminalize all instances of torture. CAT Article 4
requires States to ensure that all acts of torture are criminal offenses, subject to
appropriate penalties given their “grave nature.” State parties are also required to
apply similar criminal penalties to attempts to commit and complicity or participation
in torture.9 Accordingly, it appears that even though CAT requires States to take
“effective measures” to prevent torture only within their territorial jurisdiction, this
does not mean that States are therefore permitted to engage in torture in territories not
under their jurisdiction. While a State might not be required to take proactive
measures to prevent acts of torture beyond its territorial jurisdiction, it nevertheless
has an obligation to criminalize such extraterritorial acts and impose appropriate
penalties.
CAT Article 5 establishes minimum jurisdictional measures that each State
party must take with respect to offenses described in CAT Article 4. Pursuant to
CAT Article 5, a State party must establish jurisdiction over CAT Article 4 offenses
when:
(1) The offenses are committed in any territory under its
jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
(2) The alleged offender is a national of that State;
(3) The victim was a national of that State if that State considers
it appropriate; and
(4) The alleged offender is present in any territory under its
jurisdiction and the State does not extradite him in accordance
with CAT Article 8, which makes torture an extraditable
offense.
CAT’s prohibition of torture is absolute: “No exceptional circumstances
whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or
any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”10
According to the State Department, this blanket prohibition was viewed by the
drafters of CAT as “necessary if the Convention is to have significant effect, as
public emergencies are commonly invoked as a source of extraordinary powers or as
a justification for limiting fundamental rights and freedoms.”11
7 CAT at art. 2(1).
8 For a more detailed overview of CAT Article 3 and U.S. implementing laws and
regulations, see CRS Report RL32276, The U.N. Convention Against Torture: Overview of
U.S. Implementation Policy Concerning the Removal of Aliens.
9 CAT at art. 4(1).
10 Id. at art. 2(2).
11 State Dept. Summary, supra note 4, at 5.

---

CRS-4
CAT Requirements Prohibiting Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. CAT Article 16 requires signatory States to take
preventative measures to prevent “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment” within any territory under their jurisdiction when such acts are
committed under the color of law. CAT does not define these terms, and the State
Department suggested that the requirements of Article 16 concerning “degrading”
treatment or punishment potentially include treatment “that would probably not be
prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.”12 Unlike in the case of torture, however, CAT
does not expressly require States to criminalize acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment that occur within or outside their territorial jurisdiction.
CAT Enforcement and Monitoring Measures. CAT also established a
Committee against Torture (Committee), composed of ten experts of recognized
competence in the field of human rights who are elected to biannual terms by State
parties.13 Each party is required to submit, within a year of the Convention entering
into force for it, a report to the Committee detailing the measures it has taken to give
effect to the provisions of CAT, as well supplementary reports every four years on
any new measures taken, in addition to any other reports the Committee may
request.14 The Committee monitors State compliance with Convention obligations,15
investigates allegations of systematic CAT violations by State parties and makes
recommendations for improving compliance,16 and submits annual reports to CAT
parties and the U.N. General Assembly.17
CAT Article 30 provides that disputes between two or more signatory parties
concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention can be submitted to
arbitration upon request.18 If, within six months of the date of request for arbitration,
the parties are unable to agree upon the organization of the arbitration, any of the
parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice.19 Article 30
contains an “opt-out” provision, however, that enabled States (including the United
12 Id. at 15. The State Department noted, for instance, that the European Commission on
Human Rights once concluded that the refusal of German authorities to give formal
recognition to an individual’s sex change might constitute “degrading” treatment.
13 CAT at arts. 17-18.
14 Id. at art. 19(1). According the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights, the United States first report under CAT was due on Nov. 15, 1995 and was
submitted on Oct. 15, 1999. See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on
Human Rights, Convention Reporting Status, at
[http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/RepStatfrset?OpenFrameSet].
A second report was due on Nov. 19, 2001, but has yet to be submitted. Id.
15 CAT at arts. 19-23.
16 Id. at arts. 20-23.
17 Id. at art. 24.
18 Id. at art. 30(1).
19 CAT at art. 30(1).

---

CRS-5
States) to make a reservation at the time of CAT ratification declaring that they do
not consider themselves to be bound by Article 30.20
Implementation of the Convention Against Torture in the
United States
The United States signed CAT on April 18, 1988, and ratified the Convention
on October 21, 1994, subject to certain declarations, reservations, and
understandings.21 Perhaps most significantly, the United States included a
declaration in its instruments of ratification that CAT Articles 1 through 16 were not
self-executing.22 The following sections will discuss relevant declarations,
reservations, and understandings made by the United States to CAT, and U.S. laws
implementing CAT Article 4 requirements to criminalize torture.
Relevant Declarations, Reservations, and Understandings
Conditioning U.S. Ratification of the Convention Against Torture. As
previously mentioned, the Senate’s advice and consent to CAT ratification was
subject to the declaration that the Convention was not self-executing,23 meaning that
implementing legislation was required to fulfill U.S. international obligations under
CAT, and such implementing legislation was necessary for CAT to apply
domestically.24 In providing its advice and consent to CAT, the Senate also provided
a detailed list of understandings concerning the scope of the Convention’s definition
of torture. With respect to mental torture, a practice not specifically defined by CAT,
the United States understands such actions to refer to prolonged mental harm caused
20 Id. at art. 30(2).
21 See SEN. EXEC. RPT. 101-30, Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification, (1990)
[hereinafter “Sen. Resolution”].
22 Id. at III.(2). U.S. courts hearing cases concerning the removal of aliens have regularly
interpreted CAT provisions prohibiting alien removal to countries where an alien would
likely face torture to be non-self executing and judicially unenforceable except to the extent
permitted under domestic implementing legislation. See, e.g., Castellano-Chacon v. I.N.S.,
341 F.3d 533 (6th Cir. 2003) (applicant for withholding of removal could not invoke CAT
directly, but could rely upon implementing regulations); Akhtar v. Reno, 123 F.Supp.2d 191
(S.D.N.Y. 2000) (rejecting challenge made by criminal alien to removal pursuant to CAT,
and stating that “[g]iven the apparent intent of the United States that the Convention not be
self-executing, this Court joins the numerous other courts that have concluded that the
Convention is not self-executing”). Pursuant to the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARRA), Pub. L. 105-277 at § 2242, the United States
implemented certain provisions of CAT by announcing a policy not to expel, extradite, or
otherwise effect the involuntary removal of any person to a country where there are
substantial grounds for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to
torture. Regulations adopted pursuant to this legislation are codified at 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16-
18, 1208.16-18, and 22 C.F.R. § 95.2.
23 Sen. Resolution, supra note 21, at III.(2).
24 See RESTATEMENT, supra note 2, § 111 (“ a ‘non-self- executing’ agreement will not be
given effect as law in the absence of necessary implementation”). The United States
nevertheless has an international obligation to adjust its laws as necessary to give legal
effect to international agreements. Id. at comment h.

---

CRS-6
or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe
physical pain and suffering; (2) the administration of mind-altering substances or
procedures to disrupt the victim’s senses; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the
threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain
or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other
procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.25
The Convention’s definition of torture includes not only acts committed by
public officials, but also those acts to which they acquiesced.26 As expressed in a
U.S. understanding on this point, for a public official to acquiesce to an act of torture,
that official must, “prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such
activity and thereafter breach his or her legal responsibility to intervene to prevent
such activity.”27 U.S. implementing regulations barring the removal of aliens to
countries where they would more likely than not face torture reflect this
understanding.28 Subsequent jurisprudence and administrative decisions concerning
the removal of aliens to countries where they may face torture have recognized that
“willful blindness” by officials to torture may constitute “acquiescence,”29 but
acquiescence does not occur when a government or public official is aware of third-
party torture but unable to stop it.30 In addition, mere noncompliance with applicable
legal procedural standards does not per se constitute torture.31
With respect to Article 16 of the Convention, the Senate’s advice and consent
was based on the reservation that the United States considered itself bound to Article
25 Sen. Resolution, supra note 21, at II.(1)(a).
26 CAT at Art. 1.
27 Sen. Resolution, supra note 21, at II.(1)(d).
28 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(7).
29 See, e.g., Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2003) (declaring that the correct
inquiry in deciding whether a Chinese immigrant was entitled to relief from removal from
U.S. under CAT was not whether Chinese officials would commit torture against him, but
whether public officials would turn a blind eye to the immigrant’s torture by specified
individuals); Ontunez-Turios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2002) (upholding Board of
Immigration Appeals’ deportation order, but noting that “willful blindness” constitutes
acquiescence under CAT); Bullies v. Nye, 239 F. Supp.2d 518 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (under CAT-
implementing regulations, acquiescence by government to torture by non-governmental
agents requires either willful acceptance by government officials or at least turning a blind
eye); see also Pascual-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 73 Fed.Appx. 232 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that
relief under CAT does not require that torture will occur while victim is in the custody or
physical control of a public official).
30 See, e.g., Moshud v. Blackman, 68 Fed. Appx. 328 (3rd Cir. 2003) (denying alien’s claim
to reopen removal proceedings to assert a CAT claim based on her fear of female genital
mutilation in Ghana: although the practice was widespread, the Ghanian government had
not acquiesced to the practice because it had been made illegal and public officials had
condemned the practice); Matter of S-V-, 22 I&N Dec. 1306 (BIA 2000) (holding that
protection under CAT does not extend to persons fearing entities that a government is
unable to control).
31 Sen. Resolution, supra note 21, at II.(1)(e).

---

CRS-7
16 to the extent that such cruel, unusual, and inhuman treatment or punishment was
prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.32 According to U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, whether treatment
by public officials constitutes “cruel and unusual” treatment that is prohibited by the
Constitution is assessed using a two-prong test.33 First, it must be determined
whether the individual who has been mistreated was denied “the minimal civilized
measures of life’s necessities.”34 This standard may change over time to reflect
evolving societal standards of decency.35 Secondly, the offending individual must
have a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,”36 indicating that the infliction of pain
was “wanton”37 or, in the context of general prison conditions, reflected “deliberate
indifference to inmate health or safety.”38 Given the Senate’s understanding that
Article 16 was not self-executing and the fact that the United States did not adopt
implementing legislation with respect to CAT Article 16, it appears that the United
States agreed to bind itself to CAT Article 16 only to the extent that it was already
required to refrain from cruel and unusual treatment or punishment under the U.S.
Constitution and any existing statutes covering such offenses.
The United States has also opted out of the dispute-settlement provisions of
CAT Article 30,39 but it has reserved the right to specifically agree to follow its
provisions or any other arbitration procedure to resolve particular disputes concerning
CAT application.
Criminalization of Torture Occurring Outside the United States. To
implement CAT Articles 4 and 5, Congress did not enact a new provision to
criminalize acts of torture committed within the jurisdiction of the United States: It
was presumed that such acts would “be covered by existing applicable federal and
state statutes,”40 such as those criminalizing assault, manslaughter, and murder.
However, the United States did add sections 2340 and 2340A of the United States
Criminal Code, which criminalize acts of torture that occur outside of the United
States. “Torture” is defined as “an act committed by a person acting under the color
of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering
(other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person
32 Id. at I.(2).
33 See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).
34 Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981).
35 Id. at 346.
36 Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991).
37 Id.
38 Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 302-303).
39 See Sen. Resolution, supra note 21, at I.(3).
40 Sen. Rep. 103-107, at 59 (1993) (discussing legislation implementing CAT Articles 4 and
5).

---

CRS-8
within his custody or physical control.”41 Section 2340 further defines “severe
mental pain and suffering” as prolonged mental harm caused by:
(1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe
physical pain or suffering;
(2) the administration or application, or threatened
administration or application, of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;
(3) the threat of imminent death; or
(4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected
to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration
or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures
calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.42
Pursuant to section 2340A, any person who commits or attempts to commit an
act of torture outside the United States is generally subject to a fine and/or
imprisonment for up to 20 years.43 In cases where death results from the prohibited
conduct, the offender may be subject to life imprisonment or the death penalty.44 A
person who conspires to commit an act of torture committed or attempted outside the
United States is generally subject to the same penalties faced by someone who
commits or attempts to commit acts of torture outside the United States, except that
he cannot receive the death penalty for such an offense.45 The United States claims
jurisdiction over these prohibited actions when (1) the alleged offender is a national
of the United States or (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States,
irrespective of the nationality of the victim or offender.46
Section 2340A may not cover all acts of torture by U.S. officials that might
occur outside the territorial boundaries of the United States. Although section 2340A
criminalizes torture that occurs “outside the United States,” for purposes of the
statute, “United States” encompasses all locations within U.S. special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction.47 With respect to offenses committed by or against U.S.
citizens, the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States includes
(1) the premises of United States diplomatic, consular, military
or other United States Government missions or entities in
foreign States, including the buildings, parts of buildings, and
land appurtenant or ancillary thereto or used for purposes of
those missions or entities, irrespective of ownership; and
41 18 U.S.C. § 2340(1).
42 18 U.S.C. § 2340(2).
43 18 U.S.C. § 2340A(a).
44 Id.
45 Id.
46 18 U.S.C. § 2340A(b).
47 18 U.S.C. § 2340(3).

---

CRS-9
(2) residences in foreign States and the land appurtenant or
ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for purposes of
those missions or entities or used by United States personnel
assigned to those missions or entities.48
It would thus appear that section 2340A would not directly apply to acts of alleged
torture committed by U.S. officials abroad when such actions took place in buildings
used by U.S. diplomatic, consular, or military missions or entities, including those
used by such entities for military purposes.49 Section 2340A would appear to apply,
however, to acts of torture that do not involve U.S. nationals that might occur on
these premises. Because the section 2340A also criminalizes conspiracies to commit
torture outside the United States, it arguably could also apply in situations where a
U.S. national conspired to transfer an individual “outside the United States” so that
he may be tortured.
The nonapplicability of section 2340A to certain acts of torture that occur
outside the geographic boundaries of the United States (but within the special
maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States) does not mean that such
torture cannot be prosecuted under U.S. law. A number of federal criminal statutes
explicitly cover actions committed within the special maritime or territorial
jurisdiction of the United States, including statutes criminalizing assault,50 maiming
with the intent to torture,51 manslaughter,52 and murder,53 as well as conspiracies to
commit such crimes.54 Additionally, persons within the jurisdiction of the United
States who conspire to kill, maim, or injure persons outside the United States are
subject to criminal penalties.55 “Grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions
governing the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians, which include the torture
or inhumane treatment of such persons, are criminalized under federal statute and
persons convicted may be sentenced to life imprisonment or, if death results from the
48 18 U.S.C. § 7(9).
49 This exclusion appears to be purposeful, as the accompanying Senate Committee Report
concluded that such acts would already “be covered by existing applicable federal and state
statutes.” Sen. Rep. 103-107, at 59 (1993).
50 18 U.S.C. § 113
51 18 U.S.C. § 114. For purposes of the statute, “torture” is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2340.
52 18 U.S.C. § 1112(b).
53 18 U.S.C. § 1111(b).
54 18 U.S.C. § 371.
55 18 U.S.C. § 956(a).

---

CRS-10
breach, be executed.56 U.S. military law provides further restrictions on the treatment
of individuals detained by the military.57
Some of the criminal statutes described above, including section 2340A, provide
that the specific intent of the actor is a necessary component of the criminal offense.58
Specific intent is “the intent to accomplish the precise criminal act that one is later
charged with.”59 This state of mind can be differentiated from that found in criminal
offenses that only require an actor to possess a general intent with respect to the
offense. General intent usually “takes the form of recklessness (involving actual
awareness of a risk and the culpable taking of that risk) or negligence (involving
blameworthy inadvertence).”60 Two memorandums produced by the Department of
Defense and the Department of Justice that have recently been in the press discuss
the distinction between general and specific intent with respect to section 2340A, and
suggest that “knowledge alone that a particular result is certain to occur does not
constitute specific intent.”61 However, both memorandums make clear that this is “a
theoretical matter,”and note that juries may infer from factual circumstances that
specific intent is present.62 Accordingly, “when a defendant knows that his actions
56 18 U.S.C. § 2441. The 1949 Geneva Conventions provide that “torture or inhuman
treatment ... wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health” represent
“grave breaches” to Convention requirements. See Geneva Convention (First) for the
Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and the Sick in the Armed Forces in the
Field, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3314, 75 U.N.T.S. 31, at art. 50; Geneva Convention
(Second) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked,
Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3217, 75 U.N.T.S. 85, at art. 51; Geneva Convention (Third)
Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S.
135, at art. 130; Geneva Convention (Fourth) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons
in Times of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, at art. 147.
57 For a more comprehensive discussion of U.S. laws applicable to the treatment of prisoners
of war, see CRS Report RL32395, U.S. Treatment of Prisoners in Iraq: Selected Legal
Issues.
58 See 18 U.S.C. § 2340 (defining torture as “an act committed by a person acting under the
color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”).
59 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 814 (7th ed. 1999)
60 Id. at 813.
61 Neither agency has officially released the memoranda. This report discusses and cites the
truncated versions of the memoranda that have been made available by various news sites.
Department of Defense, Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global
War on Terrorism: Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy, and Operational Considerations
(Mar. 6, 2003), available at [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5166951/site/newsweek
[]hereinafter “DOD Memo”] at 9; Memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel,
Department of Justice, to Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, Re: Standards of
Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A (Aug. 1, 2002), available at
[ h t t p : / / w w w . w a s h i n g t o n p o s t . c o m / w p -
srv/nation/documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf] [hereinafter “DOJ Memo”] at
4.
62 DOD Memo, supra note 61, at 9; DOJ Memo, supra note 61, at 4.

---

CRS-11
will produce the prohibited result, a jury will in all likelihood conclude that the
defendant acted with specific intent.”63
Although section 2340A provides the United States with a wide jurisdictional
grant to prosecute acts of torture, it does not appear that this authority has ever been
used. A legal search by CRS did not reveal any cases in which the DOJ has relied
on section 2340A to prosecute acts of torture occurring outside of the United States.
While officials of the United States are prohibited under both domestic and
international law from engaging in or conspiring to commit torture extraterritorially,
it does not appear that such restrictions necessarily exist against cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment occurring outside the United States, except to the extent that
such acts are already prohibited under existing federal statutes that apply
extraterritorially or within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United
States. As previously discussed, CAT Article 16 obligates States to prevent cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of individuals when such treatment
occurs in territory under their jurisdiction, but the Convention does not expressly
require States to impose criminal penalties upon such actions, as it does in the case
of torture.
Decisions by Non-U.S. Bodies Concerning Whether Certain
Interrogation Techniques Rise to the Level of Torture
While U.S. courts and administrative bodies have found that severe beatings,
sexual assault, and rape may constitute “torture” for purposes of CAT,64 there is little
U.S. jurisprudence concerning whether harsh yet sophisticated interrogation
techniques of lesser severity constitute “torture” under either the Convention or U.S.
implementing legislation. “Severe” pain or suffering constituting torture is not
defined by either CAT or U.S. statute.65 Although few, if any, U.S. courts have had
63 DOD Memo, supra note 61, at 9; DOJ Memo, supra note 61, at 4.
64 See, e.g, Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 46 (3rd Cir. 2003) (“[r]ape can constitute torture”);
Al-Saher v. I.N.S., 268 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding that regular, severe beatings and
cigarette burns inflicted upon an Iraqi alien by prison guards entitled him to relief under
CAT Article 3 from removal to Iraq); Matter of Kuna, A76491421 (BIA July 12, 2001)
(unpublished) (Board of Immigration Appeals decision concluding that rape and sexual
assault may constitute torture for purposes of CAT). For purposes of the Torture Victims
Relief Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2152 note, torture is defined as including “the use of rape and other
forms of sexual violence by a person acting under the color of law .... “
65 Although “severe...pain or suffering” is not specifically defined anywhere in the United
States Code, the Department of Justice has suggested that a reviewing court might examine
the Code’s definition of “emergency medical condition” for guidance, as this definition
includes “severe pain” as a component of an emergency medical condition. DOJ Memo
supra note 61, at 5-6; see generally 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-22(d)(3)(B) (defining an emergency
medical condition as “a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient
severity (including severe pain) such that a prudent layperson, who possesses an average
knowledge of health and medicine, could reasonably expect the absence of immediate
medical attention to result in (i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a
(continued...)

---

CRS-12
the opportunity to address this issue, decisions and opinions issued by foreign courts
and international bodies might serve as indicators of an international prohibition
against certain interrogation techniques. Assuming for the purposes of discussion
that a U.S. body reviewed certain interrogation methods to assess whether they
constituted “torture” for purposes of CAT and domestic implementing legislation, it
might consider looking at jurisprudence by non-U.S. bodies for guidance, though
such jurisprudence would not be binding upon it. This section will briefly discuss
two notable circumstances in which international bodies have assessed whether a
State’s interrogation techniques constituted torture.
British Interrogation Techniques Employed in Northern Ireland. In
1978, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) heard a case brought by Ireland
against the United Kingdom concerning British tactics used to counter secessionist
movements and organizations in Northern Ireland during the early 1970s, and
whether such tactics violated the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention).66 One issue that the
ECHR was asked to resolve was whether five interrogation techniques previously
employed by British authorities and approved by “high level” British officials67
violated Article 3 of the European Convention, which provides that “no one shall be
subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”68
According to the ECHR, these five interrogation techniques, which were sometimes
used in combination and other times individually, included:
(1) wall-standing: forcing the detainees to remain for periods of
some hours in a “stress position”, described by those who
underwent it as being “spreadeagled against the wall, with their
fingers put high above the head against the wall, the legs spread
apart and the feet back, causing them to stand on their toes with
the weight of the body mainly on the fingers”;
(2) hooding: putting a black or navy coloured bag over the
detainees’ heads and, at least initially, keeping it there all the
time except during interrogation;
(3) subjection to noise: pending their interrogations, holding the
detainees in a room where there was a continuous loud and
hissing noise;
(4) deprivation of sleep: pending their interrogations, depriving
the detainees of sleep; and
65 (...continued)
pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy, (ii)
serious impairment to bodily functions, or (iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or
part”). A legal search by CRS did not reveal any cases where a U.S. court looked upon this
definition for guidance when adjudicating a criminal or civil claim concerning torture.
66 Ireland v. United Kingdom, Judgment, European Court of Human Rights (1978), available
at [http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc1doc/HEJUD/sift/91.txt] [hereinafter “Ireland”].
67 Id. at ¶ 97. At the time of the Court’s decision, Britain had pledged not to use the
interrogation techniques in the future. Id. at ¶ 153.
68 213 U.N.T.S. 211(1955).

---

CRS-13
(5) deprivation of food and drink: subjecting the detainees to a
reduced diet during their stay at the center and pending
interrogations.69
An investigation by the European Commission of Human Rights concluded that no
physical injury resulted from the use of these techniques, though certain detainees
suffered weight loss and adverse effects upon their “acute psychiatric systems ...
during interrogation.”70
The ECHR concluded that the interrogation techniques employed by Britain
violated the European Convention’s prohibition upon “inhuman or degrading
treatment,” but found that the interrogation methods did not constitute “torture.”71
The ECHR stated that a distinction exists between inhuman or degrading treatment
and torture; a “distinction [that] derives principally from a difference in the intensity
of the suffering inflicted.”72 The ECHR concluded that while the five interrogation
techniques, at least when used in combination, were inhuman or degrading treatment,
“they did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the
word torture as so understood.”73 The ECHR did not offer an in-depth analysis as to
why these techniques did not cause sufficient suffering to constitute torture, although
it should be noted that it appeared that few, if any, of the persons who were subject
to the interrogation techniques sustained lasting, debilitating physical or mental
injuries. It did note, however, that its inquiry required an evaluation of “all the
circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental
effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim.”74
Accordingly, it may be possible that in different circumstances these interrogation
techniques might be judged by the ECHR to rise to the level of torture.
Israeli Interrogation Techniques Employed Against Palestinian
Security Detainees. Beginning in the late 1980s and ending in the late 1990s,
certain Israeli security forces were authorized to employ harsh interrogation
techniques against Palestinian security detainees, including the use of “moderate
physical pressure.” In its initial report to the CAT Committee, Israel argued that the
interrogation techniques it employed were in accordance with international law
prohibiting torture.75 It specifically noted the ECHR decision declaring that the
interrogation techniques employed by Britain in Northern Ireland during the early
1970s did not constitute torture.76 The Committee concluded, however, that such
69 Ireland, supra note 66, at ¶ 96.
70 Id. at ¶ 104.
71 Id. at ¶ 167.
72 Id.
73 Id.
74 Id. at ¶ 162.
75 Committee against Torture, Initial reports of States Parties Due in 1992: Israel, U.N.
Doc. CAT/C/16/Add.4 (1994), at ¶ 34.
76 Id.

---

CRS-14
tactics were “completely unacceptable” given Israel’s obligations under CAT Articles
2 and 16.77
In response to Committee concerns about its interrogation techniques, Israel
submitted additional information concerning the nature of the interrogation
techniques it employed against Palestinian security detainees. According to the CAT
Committee, these interrogation techniques included:
(1) restraining in very painful conditions,
(2) hooding under special conditions,
(3) sounding of loud music for prolonged periods,
(4) sleep deprivation for prolonged periods,
(5) threats, including death threats,
(6) violent shaking, and
(7) using cold air to chill.78
In 1997, after examining a special report by Israel discussing these tactics, the
Committee concluded that the tactics described violated Israel’s obligations as a party
to CAT, representing a breach of CAT Article 16 and constituting torture as defined
by CAT Article 1.79 The Committee opinion suggests that some of the interrogation
techniques employed by Israel might constitute torture when employed singularly,80
although the Committee did not specify how particular methods constituted torture.
Despite acknowledging that Israel faced a “terrible dilemma ... in dealing with
terrorist threats to its security,” the Committee noted that CAT provides that no
exceptional circumstances permit State parties to engage in torture.81 Accordingly,
the Committee recommended that Israel immediately cease its use of the
interrogation tactics described above.82
The Committee is an advisory body, and its rulings are not binding. However,
in 1999, the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the Israeli High Court of Justice,
concluded that the interrogation techniques evaluated by the Committee were
contrary to Israeli law, and prohibited their usage except in cases when “special
permission” was granted permitting their usage against detainees believed to possess
information about an imminent attack.83 In doing so, however, the High Court did
77 See Committee against Torture, Concluding Observations of the Committee against
Torture: Israel, A/49/44 (1994) at ¶ 168.
78 Concluding Observations of the Committee against Torture : Israel, 18th Sess., U.N. Doc.
A/52/44 (1997) at ¶ 257.
79 Id. at ¶ 256.
80 See id. at ¶ 257 (noting that the Committee’s conclusion that the interrogation techniques
constituted torture was “particularly evident where such methods of interrogation [were]
used in combination, which appears to be the standard case”).
81 Id. at ¶ 258.
82 Id. at ¶ 260.
83 See Pub. Comm. Against Torture in Israel v. State of Israel, Judgment, H.C. 5100/94,
(continued...)

---

CRS-15
not expressly determine whether such actions constituted “torture.” According to the
State Department, Israel is reported to have used such techniques at least 90 times
since the Israeli High Court’s ruling.84 For its part, the U.S. State Department
reported in 2000 that Israeli security forces “abused, and in some cases, tortured
Palestinians suspected of security offenses.”85 More recently, the State Department
has described Israel’s interrogation tactics as “degrading treatment,” but noted that
human rights groups claim that torture is being employed.86
83 (...continued)
Israeli High Court of Justice (1999), available at
[http://62.90.71.124/eng/verdict/framesetSrch.html].
84 U.S. Dept. of State, Bureau Of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Country Reports
on Human Rights Practices - 2002 (Mar. 31, 2003), available at
[http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18289.htm].
85 U.S. Dept. of State, Bureau Of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Country Reports
on Human Rights Practices - 1999 (Feb. 23, 2000), available at
[http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/1999/416.htm].
86 U.S. Dept. of State, Bureau Of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Country Reports
on Human Rights Practices - 2003 (Feb. 25, 2004), available at
[http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm].

---