[4][5] All state parties are obliged under the convention to submit regular reports to the CAT on how rights are being implemented.

The committee examines each report and addresses its concerns and recommendations to the state party in the form of "concluding observations."

Under certain circumstances,[6][7] the CAT may consider complaints or communications from individuals claiming that their rights under the convention have been violated.

None of these states has created the independent investigation and complaints office, which means that there is no effective remedy for torture.

The report review takes place in public meetings in which the committee examines whether the state party correctly implemented the Torture Convention and how it could remedy existing shortcomings (Rule 70 RMA).

If the committee determines during the audit that the state has failed to implement the agreement, it may submit proposals to remedy the deficiencies (Article 19 (3) FoK, Rule 71 of the VerfO).

[42] The Anti-torture Convention also includes an inquiry procedure which empowers the committee to conduct investigations when reliable information is available on serious or systematic NPT violations by a state party and seeks the cooperation of the state party concerned (Article 20) FoK).

[43] The state is asked by the committee to participate in the investigation proceedings and to provide information on these suspicions (Article 20 (1) FoK, Rule 82 et seq.

If the committee is confronted with such serious or systematic torture by a state, it may also bring the matter to the attention of the UN General Assembly.

The latter then decide on the further course of action, because extensive or systematic violations of the torture prohibition are considered crimes against humanity according to Art.

The condition for this is that both states explicitly recognized the competence of the committee when ratifying the treaty (Article 21 (1) FoK, Rule 91, 97 VerO).

If no amicable agreement is reached, a final report will be prepared, completing the procedure for the committee (Article 21 (1) (h), (ii) FoK, Rule 101 of the VerfO).

As a precautionary measure, 12 states rejected the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice when concluding the contract (Article 30 (1) FoK).

States do not necessarily have to refer to the International Court of Justice, there is also a European Convention on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes.

For example, on 16 December 1971, Ireland lodged a complaint against England with the ECMR for failing to comply with the prohibition of torture under Article 3 of the ECHR.

Ireland could not file the complaint with either the CAT or the CCPR (Article 7 IpbpR), as they did not enter into force until about 10 years later.

[54] The complaint must be in writing, it must not be anonymous and must be written in one of the working languages of the committee; for this, the national legal process must be unsuccessful.

The complaint may be dismissed on the grounds that the committee has no jurisdiction, since the alleged infringement is not part of the FoK (ratione materiae) or it constitutes an abuse of the right of appeal.

It uses the same form for rejecting the complaint filed with the CERD, CAT and the CCPR, in which mostly inadequate justification is ticked, although this is not provided for and instead information would have to be obtained (Rule 105 RCD).

If it has been approved, the summary will be forwarded to the state concerned for comment, which may then raise the objection of inadmissibility (Rule 115 RCD).

If the committee has found a breach of contract, it gives the state proposals and recommendations on how to remedy them (Article 22 (7) FoK).

2 IpBPR the prohibition of tort is mandatory international law - it has no consequences for the fallible state, the CAT is only recommended to stop it.

The committee can also take precautionary measures on its own initiative, but they do not make a decision on the admissibility of the complaint or on the finding of a failure by the state (Rule 114 RCD).

3 ECHR may not be filed simultaneously with the committee, the ECtHR] or another UN treaty body, so-called "same-subject reservation" (Art.

11 ECHR Freedom of assembly and association, as there is no overlap but concerns various breaches of contract by the same state.

17 FoK for four years each The figures are without the complaints already rejected by the Secretariat of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).