Blog: International Day in Support of Victims of Torture

The word “torture” often conjures pictures of intense interrogations and medieval types of punishment, and most people might assume that torture does not happen in the UK.

The UN Convention Against Torture outlines a limited definition of “torture”, as any intentional act producing severe mental or physical pain or suffering by a person acting on behalf of a state, for a specific purpose, which might be to punish, intimidate, coerce, discriminate or interrogate.

There is ongoing debate about the definitions of “torture” and where it is distinct to “other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment” (CIDT), and whether and how they are different. The Head of the UK NPM and NPM Secretariat Officer are currently working with the University of Edinburgh to publish an upcoming piece which will argue that this definition could be broader and examines whether the intention requirement is in engaged in the face of repeated concerns from scrutiny bodies.

Broadly, torture and CIDT refer to severe harm, either physical or mental, sustained through environments or experiences while deprived of liberty through state authority. Both are equally prohibited in any circumstance. Alongside the prohibition of torture and CIDT under international law, states are obliged to treat anyone deprived of their liberty with humanity and respect for their inherent dignity.

At the UK NPM, we often use the term “ill treatment” to cover all elements of torture and CIDT. This term is briefer and easier to use. Moreover, because the Convention Against Torture has traditionally been understood to primarily protect individuals in criminal justice settings, using the term “ill treatment” is a reminder that those deprived of their liberty in other settings such as mental health or social care facilities also need protection.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) applies a minimum threshold of severity to decide whether there has been a violation, bearing in mind the nature, context and duration of the treatment, how it was delivered, and the individual circumstances of the victim. Lack of intent does not rule out a violation where an act has harmed a person’s dignity, though purpose, intent and motivation are considered. The Court has also used existence or absence of a specific purpose, as well as severity, to distinguish between torture and CIDT, though the obligations to prevent both are indivisible and interrelated.

The UN Human Rights Committee has similarly clarified that strict distinctions between torture and other forms of ill treatment are not necessary, as the aim of the prohibition is to protect dignity and physical and mental integrity. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) reinforces its Article 7 prohibition of torture and CIDT with Article 10, which requires that all persons deprived of their liberty be treated with humanity and respect, addressing more systemic issues in detention.

The UK has demonstrated a steadfast commitment to the prohibition of torture, through its role in drafting both the UN Convention Against Torture, which it ratified on 8 December 1988, and the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

 The UK was the first country to ratify the ECHR in 1951, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3. As a living instrument, the ECHR has adapted to changes in technology, best-practice and knowledge to continue to protect people’s rights in a changing world. The UK Government is currently reviewing legislation to clarify the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence in domestic law. In a recent speech at the Council of Europe, the Lord Chancellor described this review in relation to immigration rules and to prisoners’ “right to socialise”. While reassured by the Lord Chancellors firm commitment to the Council of Europe and to the Convention Against Torture, the NPM cautions against any potential damage to the absolute integrity of the rights of individuals who have historically been more vulnerable to human rights violations through their dependence on state authorities.

The prohibition of torture and CIDT is absolute, meaning that it can never be justified even under national emergency. The UK has had an active role in building this absolute prohibition. It was one of the first states to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) in 2003, delegating and resourcing the UK’s National Preventive Mechanism to conduct monitoring visits to places of detention and report on its findings for the 16 years since. As well as agreeing its negative obligation to refrain from inflicting serious harm on those in its jurisdiction, the UK also accepts positive obligations to protect, through legislation, regulation and operational measures, against a risk of ill treatment, and to carry out valid claims of such treatment.

Inhuman or degrading living conditions
In their 2022 visit to the UK, the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) concluded that “the cumulative effect of prolonged detention in very poor conditions may have exposed many of those detained at Manston Short-term holding facility… to inhuman and degrading treatment,” after finding that some people had been held for more than 40 days in overcrowded facilities furnished only with foam mattresses, limited sanitary facilities and a very confined outdoor area for fresh air.

Ill treatment can come about through individual actions or through an accumulation of conditions or interactions. A number of cases have raised concerns about treatment in the UK which may breach the prohibition of torture, as the following examples will show:

Solitary confinement
Solitary confinement can amount to torture or CIDT due to the severe psychological effects it can produce. As noted in the UK NPM guidance on isolation, isolation practices must only be used when absolutely necessary, for the shortest time possible, and be proportionate to the legitimate objective for which they are imposed. Because of the harm that isolation can cause, additional safeguards also need to be in place.

However, extremely concerning instances of isolation continue to occur. In 2018, the UK NPM highlighted practices amounting to solitary confinement of children and young people lasting for more than 22 hours a day for several weeks.  A 2020 HMIP report found that children in young offender institutions were subject to widespread solitary confinement, and a 2024 progress review found that separation continues to be used. In 2023, the government reached a settlement in a case before the European Court of Human Rights, agreeing that subjecting a 15-year-old boy with serious mental health problems to more than seven weeks of solitary confinement in HMP YOI Feltham in 2016-2017 had amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment. During this time, the boy was locked in his cell for more than 23 hours a day, with no education or contact with other children, and was allowed out of his cell only to shower, use the phone or exercise for a half-hour period.

Indefinite detention
The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has criticised indefinite Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences in England and Wales as amounting to psychological torture, in her call for an urgent review last year. The UN definition of torture clarifies that suffering inherent in the imposition of “lawful sanctions”, i.e. the deprivation of liberty itself, is not considered torture. However, as the UK NPM has highlighted in our recent briefing on indeterminate sentencing, in order to be “lawful”, sanctions “cannot be open-ended, indefinite or grossly excessive to their purpose, but must be clearly defined, circumscribed and proportionate.” As detailed by the ECtHR, a sanction which provides no possibility of ever gaining release violates the article 3 prohibition (James, Wells and Lee v the United Kingdom (2012)).
Inhuman or degrading living conditions

In their 2022 visit to the UK, the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) concluded that “the cumulative effect of prolonged detention in very poor conditions may have exposed many of those detained at Manston Short-term holding facility… to inhuman and degrading treatment,” after finding that some people had been held for more than 40 days in overcrowded facilities furnished only with foam mattresses, limited sanitary facilities and a very confined outdoor area for fresh air.

Being deprived of liberty removes a person’s ability to provide for their own needs, making the state responsible for their dignity and wellbeing. A person deprived of their liberty is inherently more vulnerable due to this dependence. Recognising this, the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) was created, requiring, among other things, that all states party to the protocol establish a national preventive mechanism (NPM). An NPM’s primary function is to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of those deprived of their liberty, through regular, preventive visits to places where people are deprived of their liberty.
OPCAT recognises that efforts to eradicate torture should first and foremost be concentrated on prevention. Rather than investigating whether a practice or environment amounts to torture, NPMs create a regular presence that reduces risk factors that can make a torturous environment or any act of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment more likely.
The UK NPM, made up of 21 organisations which inspect, monitor and visit places in the UK where people are or may be deprived of their liberty, holds the UK to account for the treatment and conditions in those places. As well as recommendations made directly to prisons, secure hospitals or police custody centres, for example, the NPM compiles public reports, analyses findings to develop bespoke recommendations and training packages, contributes to legislative scrutiny to improve frameworks to protect detained people, and give evidence to UN and Council of Europe treaty bodies and special procedures.

To learn more about the work of the UK NPM this year, read our 2025-26 Business Plan.