REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the review of Regulation (EU) 2019/125 of 16 January 2019 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Date: 2025-12-09
Institutions: European Commission, Service for Foreign Policy Instruments
Subjects: cruel and degrading treatment, death penalty, export (EU), export licence, human rights, import licence, international trade, third country, torture, trade regulations

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 9.12.2025  COM(2025) 748 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the review of Regulation (EU) 2019/125 of 16 January 2019 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment  
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION  

The trade in goods which could be used for (a) capital punishment and (b) torture or other cruel, 
inhuman  or  degrading  treatment  or  punishment  is  regulated  by  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1251 
(‘the Regulation’). Adopted in 2005, the Regulation reflects the EU’s strong commitment to 
eradicating torture and the death penalty.  

The EU Anti-Torture Regulation  has helped close a major gap in  human rights-based trade 
controls.  It  introduced  unprecedented,  binding  trade  restrictions  on  a  range  of  goods  often 
absent from military, dual-use or other strategic export control lists. The Regulation has been 
widely praised by international human rights actors: for example, the UN Special Rapporteur 
on Torture referred to the Regulation as “a positive example of a regional framework targeting 
items intended for torture or other ill-treatment”2. 

In 2016, the Regulation, and particularly its procedural provisions, were amended substantially. 
In  2019,  the  Regulation  was  codified.  In  2011,  2014,  2020,  and  2025,  delegated  acts  were 
adopted to update or expand the Annexes to the Regulation.  

In line with the requirements of Article 32 of the Regulation, this report provides information 
about the Regulation’s implementation and impact between 2020 and  mid-2025. The report 
addresses the following areas in particular: amendments to the Regulation through delegated 
acts; implementation at national level; information requirements; activities of the Anti-Torture 
Coordination Group and of EU nationals abroad in relation to the Regulation. This report also 
provides  an  overview  of  key  data  under  the  Regulation  and  assesses  the  Regulation’s 
implementation  in  relation  to  the  basic  principles  of  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence and EU added value.  

2.  REGULATION (EU) 2019/125 

2.1 Objective and main provisions of Regulation (EU) 2019/125 

The Regulation’s objective is to prevent capital punishment, on the one hand, and torture and 
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in third countries, on the other.  

To  that  end,  the  Regulation  introduces  restrictions  on  trade  with  non-EU  countries.  The 
Regulation, in particular: 

i. 

ii. 

prohibits imports, exports and transit into, from or through the EU of goods (listed in 
Annex II) that have no practical use other than for the purposes of capital punishment 
or torture. The provision of any technical assistance related to such goods, specifically 
including training in their use, is also prohibited. In addition, the advertising of such 
goods on the internet, TV, radio, or at trade fairs is prohibited; 

subjects goods (listed in Annex III) that could be used for such purposes but that may 
also  have  other  legitimate  uses  (law  enforcement)  to  a  prior  export  authorisation, 
granted  on  a  case-by-case  basis;  such  authorisation  is  also  required  for  supplying 
technical assistance or brokering services related to this category of goods. Annex III 

1 Regulation (EU) 2019/125 of 16 January 2019 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital 
punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, OJ L 30, 31.1.2019, p. 1. 
2 A/78/324 of 24.8.2023 

1 

 
 
 
does not include: (a) firearms controlled by Regulation (EU) No 258/20123; (b) dual-
use  items  controlled  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  428/20094;  (c)  goods  controlled  in 
accordance with Common Position 2008/944/CFSP5; 

iii. 

regulates the trade in goods – chemicals or pharmaceutical substances (Annex IV)  – 
that could be used for capital punishment (e.g. products which could be used to execute 
human beings by lethal injection). These goods were added to the list of goods subject 
to  export  controls  in  2011.  A  distinct  type  of  authorisation  (‘EU  General  Export 
Authorisation’) was introduced to control the export of such anaesthetic chemicals and 
to prevent their transfer for use in lethal injection executions without limiting the trade 
of  such  chemicals  for  medical,  veterinary  or  other  legitimate  purposes6.  Where  the 
export  of  medicinal  products  requires  an  export  authorisation  pursuant  to  the 
Regulation and the export is also subject to authorisation requirements in accordance 
with international conventions controlling narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, 
such as the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, Member States may use a 
single procedure to fulfil the obligations imposed on them by this Regulation and by 
the relevant convention. 

The transit (transport within the customs territory of the EU of non-EU goods passing through 
it and destined for third countries) of Annex II goods is prohibited. The transit of regulated 
goods listed in Annex III is generally not prohibited but is prohibited if the operator executing 
the transit of goods ‘knows that any part of a shipment of such goods is intended to be used for 
torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in a third country’. 

The Regulation does not control the import into the EU, or the transfer between EU Member 
States,  of  law  enforcement  equipment  and  related  goods  that  can  have  legitimate  law 
enforcement  purposes  but  could  also  be  misused  for  torture  and  other  ill  treatment.  The 
Regulation also does not prohibit the intra-EU transfer of inherently abusive or inappropriate 
goods. 

The Regulation is legally binding and directly applicable in all EU Member States; it places 
obligations on ‘exporters’, as defined in Article 2(n). Member States are responsible for the 
implementation and enforcement of the Regulation. Member States’ competent authorities, as 
defined  in  Annex  I  to  the  Regulation,  are  responsible  for  monitoring  compliance  with  the 
prohibitions  and  licensing  requirements  of  the  Regulation  and  customs  authorities  are 
responsible  for  checking,  at  the  EU  external  border,  whether  the  goods  being  exported  or 
imported comply with the requirements of the Regulation. 

The Regulation requires EU Member States to publish annual activity reports detailing relevant 
applications  and  authorisations.  It  includes  further  measures  to  facilitate  transparency  and 
dissuade one EU Member State from  circumventing another Member State’s export licence 

3 Regulation (EU) No 258/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 implementing 
Article 10 of the United Nations’ Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their 
parts  and  components  and  ammunition,  supplementing  the  United  Nations  Convention  against  Transnational 
Organised Crime (UN Firearms Protocol), and establishing export authorisation, and import and transit measures 
for firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, OJ L 94, 30.3.2012, p. 1. 
4 Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, 
transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items, OJ L 134, 29.5.2009, p.1. 
5 Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP defining common rules governing the control of exports of military 
technology and equipment (CFSP) (2020/C 85/01), OJ, C 85-1, 13.3.2020. 
6 Article 20 and Annex V to the Regulation 

2 

 
 
 
refusal.  It  also contains provisions facilitating the regular review and amendment of lists of 
prohibited and regulated goods, enabling EU Member States to address a duly substantiated 
request to the Commission for consideration.  

2.2 Restrictions on trade: a key instrument to prevent torture and the death penalty 

Article  5  of  the  Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights,  Article  7  of  the  International 
Covenant  on  Civil  and  Political  Rights,  Article  3  of  the  European  Convention  for  the 
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and most notably the United Nations 
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 
all lay down an unconditional, comprehensive prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman 
or degrading treatment or punishment. 

In  2022,  the  United  Nations  General  Assembly  (UNGA)  called  upon  all  States  to  ‘take 
appropriate effective legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures to  prevent  and 
prohibit the production, trade, export, import and use of equipment that has no practical use 
other  than  for  the  purpose  of  torture  or  other  cruel,  inhuman  or  degrading  treatment  or 
punishment’7. 

The absolute ban on torture enshrined in United Nations human rights conventions is reflected 
at EU level in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter)8. Article 
2(2)  of  the  Charter  states  that  no  one  may  be  condemned  to  the  death  penalty  or  executed. 
Article  4  of  the  Charter  states  that  no  one  may  be  subjected  to  torture  or  to  inhuman  or 
degrading treatment or punishment. 

Despite  States’  obligations  under  international  law,  acts  of  torture  and  other  ill-treatment 
continue to persist around the world. In recent years, there has been a growing recognition by 
the international community of the need to regulate and restrict trade in certain law enforcement 
equipment to ensure that such goods are not employed for torture or other ill treatment. Calls 
from  civil  society  for  further  measures  to  regulate  and  restrict  these  goods  have  also  been 
increasing globally over the past years. 

Inspired by the EU Regulation, the global Alliance for Torture-Free Trade (Global Alliance), 
co-chaired by the European Union, Argentina and Mongolia, was launched in 2017. It aims to 
make trade in goods intended, or with a potential to be used, for capital punishment and torture 
significantly more difficult at an international level. By joining the Global Alliance, countries 
commit,  among  other  things,  to  take  effective  measures  through  domestic  legislation  and 
efficient enforcement to restrict trade in goods used for torture and the death penalty. 
A UNGA resolution adopted in 2019 at the initiative of the Global Alliance9 tasked the UN 
Secretary-General to issue a report outlining the views of Member States on the feasibility and 
possible scope of a range of options to establish common international standards on the trade 
in goods used for torture and the death penalty10. The resolution also mandated a UN Group of 
Governmental Experts (UNGEE) with exploring options for establishing common international 
standards concerning trade in torture-related goods. The report11, presented in 2022, makes a 
compelling  argument  for  the  UNGA  to  establish  a  forward-looking  process  on  torture-free 
trade, with a view to regulating trade in torture-related goods.  

7 UN Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 15 December 2022, A/RES/77/209. Torture and other cruel, 
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 
8 OJ C 202, 7.6.2016, p. 389. 
9 A/RES/73/304 adopted by the General Assembly on 28.6.2019 
10 A/74/969 of 28.7.2020 
11 A/76/850 of 31.5.2022 

3 

 
 
 
In October 2023, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture presented a thematic report  on the 
‘Global trade in weapons, equipment and devices used by law enforcement and other public 
authorities that are capable of inflicting torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment 
or  punishment’  at  the  UNGA  Third  Committee12.  The  report  includes  an  annex  identifying 
inherently  abusive  equipment,  which  should  be  prohibited;  and  another  one  including  law 
enforcement equipment that could be misused for torture and whose trade should be regulated. 
In addition to recommending that States review and amend their national laws and procedures 
with respect to the listed items, the Special Rapporteur also calls for an international torture-
free trade instrument to be developed, with view of complementing and reinforcing existing 
obligations to prohibit and prevent torture and other ill-treatment or punishment. In April 2024, 
two other UN special procedures, issued a similar call, stressing that “States should review and 
amend national laws and procedures to cease and prohibit the production, trade and use of tools 
and equipment violating the right to dignity, life, security and liberty”.13 

The Council of Europe (CoE) Recommendation on measures against the trade in goods used 
for the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, 
adopted by the CoE Committee of Ministers in 202114, largely mirrors the EU Regulation15. It 
recommends  that  CoE  Member  States  prohibit  the  trade  in  inherently  abusive  goods  and 
equipment; regulate and license the export and transit of certain pharmaceutical chemicals; and 
put in place effective national export and transit control measures regarding the trade in law 
enforcement goods and equipment that can be misused by officials to inflict torture and other 
inhuman  or  degrading  treatment  or  punishment.  The  Recommendation  includes  three 
Appendices listing: (i) prohibited inherently abusive goods and equipment; (ii) pharmaceutical 
chemicals  used  in  lethal  injection  executions,  the  export  and  transit  of  which  should  be 
regulated and licensed; and (iii) controlled goods and equipment that may have legitimate law 
enforcement  uses  in  accordance  with  international  and  regional  human  rights  standards  but 
which may be misused to inflict torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 
The Recommendation also encourages all CoE Member States to join the Global Alliance for 
Torture-Free Trade. At the moment of writing, all but three CoE Member States are members 
of the Global Alliance16. 

2.3 Review of Regulation 2019/125 (Article 32) 

Article 32 of the Regulation requires the Commission to present by 31 July 2020, and every 
five  years  after  that,  a  comprehensive  implementation  and  impact  assessment  report  to  the 
European Parliament and to the Council, which may include proposals for its amendment. The 
Regulation  stipulates  that  this  review  will  assess  the  need  to  include  the  activities  of  EU 
nationals abroad. 

Member States are required to provide the Commission with all appropriate information for 
preparing  the  report.  Special  sections  of  the  report  are  to  deal  with  the  Anti-Torture 
Coordination  Group  established  by  the  Regulation  (Article  31)  and  with  its  activities  and 
provide information  on the measures taken by the Member States pursuant  to  Article 33(1) 
(penalties). 

12 A/78/324 of 24.8.2023 
13 UN experts call for international torture-free trade agreement | OHCHR  
14 CM/Rec (2021) 2 
15 Combatting torture globally: Council of Europe’s Recommendation inspired by EU’s ‘Anti-Torture’ Regulation 
- Service for Foreign Policy Instruments 
16 Andorra, Azerbaijan and Türkiye are currently not members of the Global Alliance for Torture-Free Trade. 

4 

 
 
 
2.3.1 2020 report on the review of the Regulation 
The first review report by the Commission17 was presented in 2020, covering activities in 2017, 
2018 and 2019. The report concluded that the Regulation filled a gap in EU human rights-based 
trade  controls,  proving  to  be  instrumental  in  promoting  respect  for  human  life  and  human 
rights.  

While the Regulation was assessed to be implemented satisfactorily, the report stressed that its 
scope should respond to evolving technological and market developments and take account of 
changes in the nature of the use, and misuse, of law enforcement equipment. The possibility of 
providing guidance on the practical application of certain aspects of the Regulation was also 
mentioned,  as  was  exploring  ways  for  more  monitoring  of  infringements  and  end-use  of 
exported goods as well  as  information  sharing  about  the implementation of the Regulation, 
including risk assessment. 

Finally, the Commission proposed the setting up of a group of experts, including from relevant 
non-governmental organisations, international organisations, academia and industry, to advise 
the Commission on strengthening the implementation of the Regulation. 

2.3.2 

2025 review report: Scope of this report 

The  current  report,  the  second  of  its  kind,  provides  information  on  the  Regulation’s 
implementation  and  impact  from  2020  until  the  publication  of  the  Commission  Delegated 
Regulation  (EU)  2025/928  of  21  May  202518.  However,  for  certain  aspects  of  the 
implementation  of  the  Regulation,  namely  export  authorisations  and  the  work  of  the  Anti-
Torture Coordination Group (see sections 3.2, 3.3., 3.4, 3.5), the report will cover activities 
until end of 2024, as data related to 2025 are reported by Member States only in 2026.  

The report also assesses the Regulation’s implementation in relation to the basic principles of 
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value. This assessment focuses 
on whether the Regulation meets its main objective(s) and whether new challenges have arisen 
since 2020. This is to help determine whether further action is needed to address any identified 
shortcomings. 

3.  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGULATION 

3.1 Regulatory framework 

The Regulation was initially adopted as Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in 
certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or 
degrading treatment or punishment. It was adopted on 27 June 2005 and entered into force on 
30 July 200619. The last amendment was adopted on 21 May 2025 (see Section 3.1.2).  

The Regulation was codified as Regulation (EU) 2019/125 of the European Parliament and of 
the  Council  of  16  January  2019  concerning  trade  in  certain  goods  which  could  be  used  for 
capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment20. 

17 COM (2020) 343 of 30.7.2020 
18 OJ L, 2025/928 
19 OJ L 200, 30.7.2005, p. 1–19 
20 OJ L 30, 31.1.2019, p. 1 – 57 

5 

 
 
 
3.1.1 Delegation of power conferred on the Commission 

In accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 2019/125, the Commission is empowered to 
adopt delegated acts to amend Annexes I, II, III, IV, V, VI VII, VIII and IX to the Regulation. 
Article 29 (2) of the Regulation provides that ‘the delegation of power shall be tacitly extended 
for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes 
such extension not later than three months before the end of each period’. In line with Article 
29 (2) of the Regulation, the Commission adopted on 22 February 2021 a report in respect of 
the  delegation  of  power21,  in  which  it  argued  to  prolong  the  delegation  of  power  to  adopt 
delegated acts for a further period of five years and invited the European Parliament and the 
Council to take note of that report.  

3.1.2 Amendments to the Regulation 

The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts to amend the list of goods that are either 
prohibited or controlled. 

During the reporting period, the Regulation was amended three times through delegated acts, 
twice in 2020 and once in 2025.  
COMMISSION  DELEGATED  REGULATION  (EU)  2020/621  of  18  February  202022 
amended Annex I (updating the entries of several competent authorities) and Annex V (adding 
The Gambia and Madagascar to the list of countries of destination to which the Union general 
export authorisation applies) to Regulation. 
COMMISSION  DELEGATED  REGULATION  (EU)  2021/139  of  4  December  202023 
amended Annexes  I and V to  Regulation  to  take into account  the withdrawal  of the United 
Kingdom from the Union24. 
COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2025/928 of  21 May 202525  amended 
Annex II and Annex III to Regulation. 

As noted in the Commission’s 2020 review report, the list of goods described in the Annexes 
to the Regulation needs to stay up to date in order to respond to changes in the international 
security market and in the use and misuse of law enforcement equipment as well as to emerging 
trends  and  challenges  related  to  capital  punishment,  torture  or  other  cruel,  inhuman  or 
degrading treatment or punishment.  

Rapid  technological  developments  have  introduced  new  tools  for  law  enforcement  in  the 
security  market.  At  the  same  time,  acts  of  torture  and  other  ill-treatment  are  not  only 
widespread in places of detention but are also common in extra custodial settings, such as in 
the context of policing assemblies26. The Commission Delegated Regulation 2025/928 of 21 
May 2025 addresses these trends, expanding the categories of goods listed in Annexes II and 
III to Regulation. 

21 COM (2021) 75 
22 OJ 144, 7.5.2020, p. 1-5. 
23 OJ L 43, 8.2.2021, p. 5-7 
24  According  to  Article  5  (4)  of  the  Protocol  on  Ireland/Northern  Ireland  (OJ  CI  384/1  of  12.11.2019),  the 
provisions of Union law listed in Annex 2 to the Protocol also apply to and in the United Kingdom in respect of 
Northern Ireland. Regulation (EU) 2019/125 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 January 2019 
concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman, or 
degrading treatment or punishment (codification) is included in Annex 2, point 47, to the Protocol. 
25  OJ L, 2025/928 
26  https://fpi.ec.europa.eu/news/eus-fight-against-torture-and-other-ill-treatment-working-towards-torture-free-
trade-2025-05-21_en 

6 

 
 
 
The aforementioned Commission Delegated Regulation builds primarily upon the conclusions 
of  the  2020  Commission’s  review  report,  extensive  consultations  with  the  Anti-Torture 
Coordination  Group,  the  work  of  the  Commission’s  informal  group  of  experts  for  the 
implementation of the Regulation, reports from the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, notably 
the  2023  thematic  report  referred  to  in  Section  2.2,  as  well  as  from  non-governmental 
organisations with expertise in this field.  

3.1.3 National implementing measures  

The  Regulation  is  binding  in  its  entirety  and  directly  applicable  in  all  Member  States. 
Therefore,  its  provisions  related  to  import  and  export  prohibitions  are  implemented  in  the 
TARIC27.  This  ensures  the  uniform  application  though  the  whole  EU  customs  teritory.  EU 
Member States are responsible for its implementation. Member States have the responsibility 
to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether to grant an authorisation to export or dismiss an 
application for the regulated goods listed in Annex III and IV to the Regulation.  

In  order  to  prevent  circumvention,  the  Regulation  requires  the  competent  authorities  in  the 
Member States to notify all other Member State authorities and the Commission whenever they 
decline  to  issue  an  authorisation  or  annul  an  existing  authorisation.  Consequently,  any  EU 
Member State considering authorising a transaction ‘essentially identical’ to one rejected by 
another  Member  State  in  the  three  years  following  the  rejection  is  required  to  consult  the 
Member State having decided on the rejection. If an authorisation is nonetheless granted, the 
authorising  Member  State  must  provide  a  detailed  explanation  of  its  reasoning  to  the 
Commission and all Member States. When assessing an application, the authorities are to take 
into account considerations about the intended end-use and the risk of diversion for illegitimate 
purposes.  

Member States ‘shall not grant an authorisation when there are reasonable grounds to believe 
that the goods listed in Annex III might be used for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading 
treatment  or  punishment,  including  judicial  corporal  punishment,  by  a  law  enforcement 
authority or any natural or legal person, or used for capital punishment in a third country’.  
The Regulation lists the following sources of information to guide the authorities’ decisions28:  

- 
- 
- 

available international court judgments;  
findings of the competent bodies of the UN, the Council of Europe and the EU; 
reports of the Council of Europe's European Committee for the Prevention of Torture 
and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment, and the UN Special Rapporteur 
on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  

Other information that the authorities may use when taking decisions include:  

- 
- 
- 

available national court judgments;  
reports by civil society organisations; and  
information on restrictions on exports of goods listed in Annexes II and III applied by 
the country of destination.  

27 The Integrated Tariff of the European Union is a multilingual database integrating all measures relating to EU 
customs tariff, commercial and agricultural legislation.  See Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 
1987 on  the  tariff  and  statistical  nomenclature  and  on  the  Common  Customs  Tariff  (Official  Journal  L  256, 
07/09/1987). 
28 Art. 12 of the Regulation provides a non-exhaustive list of sources that Member States should take into account 
when deciding on applications for export authorisations. 

7 

 
 
 
The  same  criteria  apply  when  deciding  on  applications  related  to  the  supply  of  brokering 
services or technical assistance.  

Member States notified the Commission of 42 rejections over the reporting period (2020-2024). 
Details  on  the  export  authorisations  issued  and  dismissed  during  the  reporting  period  are 
described in Section 3.6. 

Based on Article 23 of the Regulation, the competent authorities in the Member States are also 
requested to register in a Commission database all data concerning refusals of applications for 
an authorisation to export. The database, namely Dual Use Electronic System (Dues), identifies 
the relevant EU competent authority, final destination, item concerned, description of the item, 
and the name of the consignee as well as of the end user.  

The Regulation defines a mechanism for adding goods to Annex II, Annex III or Annex IV, 
enabling an EU Member State to address a duly substantiated request to the Commission for 
consideration. The Commission has not received any such request during the reporting period. 

In  addition  to  the  list  of  goods  whose  trade  is  prohibited  or  regulated,  the  Regulation  also 
includes provisions allowing EU Member States to autonomously introduce further national 
measures to regulate trade in certain additional goods. 

According  to  Article  10  of  the  Regulation,  Member  States  may  adopt  or  maintain  national 
measures restricting transportation, financial services, insurance or re-insurance, and general 
advertising or promotion for goods listed in Annex II. Furthermore, according to Article 14 of 
the Regulation, Member States may adopt or maintain a prohibition on the export and import 
of leg irons, gang chains and portable electric shock devices. Member States may also impose 
an authorisation requirement on the export of oversized handcuffs. 

Moreover, the Member States’ competent authorities inform the Commission of their activities 
under the Regulation, including on the number of applications  received. The Commission’s 
annual report is based on the information provided by the Member States, including through 
the  national  reports  drawn  up  pursuant  to  Article  26(3).  During  the  reporting  period,  the 
Commission adopted reports on Member States’ authorisations granted and refused in 202029, 
202130, 202231, 202332 and 2024 for exports of goods which could be used for torture or for 
capital punishment33. A report on export authorisations in 2025 is expected to be adopted in 
the second half of 2026. 

3.2 Activities of the Anti-Torture Coordination Group 

The Anti-Torture Coordination Group (ATCG) was set up following the 2016 amendment of 
the  Regulation34  and  serves  to  ‘examine  any  questions  concerning  the  application  of  this 
Regulation.’ The ATCG, chaired by the Commission, serves as a platform for Member States' 
representatives  and  the  Commission  to  exchange  information  on  administrative  practices. 
Furthermore,  when  preparing  delegated  acts,  the  Commission  consults  the  ATCG  in 

29 COM (2021) 632 of 14.10.2021 
30 COM (2022) 567 of 31.10.2022 
31 COM (2023) 689 of 08.11.2023 
32 COM (2024) 529 of 19.11.2024 
33 COM (2019) 445 of 1.10.2019 
 34Regulation (EU) 2016/2134 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 November 2016 amending 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1236/2005  concerning  trade  in  certain  goods  which  could  be  used  for  capital 
punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, OJ L 338, of 13.12.2016, p.1. 

8 

 
 
 
accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 
on Better Law-Making35. 
The ATCG held ten meetings during the reporting period36.  

In line with Article 31(4) of the Regulation, the Commission submits a report to the European 
Parliament on the activities, examinations and consultations of the ATCG. During the reporting 
period covered by this report, the Commission adopted reports covering the activities of the 
ATCG in 202037, 202138, 202239, 202340 and 202441. A report on the activities of the ATCG in 
2025 is expected to be adopted in the second half of 2026. 

During the reporting period, the ATCG had technical exchanges on the tools available in the 
Commission’s electronic database, namely Dual Use Electronic System (Dues), a secure and 
encrypted system created to help the national authorities responsible for export control matters 
exchange  information  with  the  Commission.  Article  23(5)  of  the  Regulation  requires  the 
competent authorities to use that system to communicate information on cases where a request 
for an export authorisation was rejected (referred to as ‘denials’).  

In line with recital 48, the ATCG examined the delegated acts amending the Annexes to the 
Regulation, proposed by the Commission during the reporting period (see Section 3.1.2 above). 
In 2020, the Group discussed the delegated act amending Annex I to the Regulation, adopted 
on 18 February 2020, as well as the delegated act amending Annexes I and V to Regulation to 
take  into  account  the  withdrawal  of  the  United  Kingdom  from  the  Union,  adopted  on 
4 December 2020. In 2023 and 2024, the Commission organised several technical consultations 
with  ATCG  members  concerning  the  delegated  act  amending  Annexes  II  and  III  of  the 
Regulation, which was eventually adopted in 2025. 

The ATCG was also regularly updated on the activities of the Commission’s Informal Group 
of  Experts.  Lastly,  the  ATCG  held  exchanges  of  views  on  the  Global  Alliance  and  on 
international  developments  on  torture-free  trade.  In  particular,  the  Commission  updated  the 
Group  regarding  the  2020  report  by  the  UN  Secretary-General,  the  2022  report  by  the  UN 
group  of  governmental  experts,  as  well  as  the  2023  thematic  report  by  the  UN  Special 
Rapporteur on torture (see Section 2.2), including their relevance for the strengthening of the 
EU  Regulation.  In  that  context,  the  ATCG  discussed  progress  towards  possible  common 
international standards in the field of torture-free trade. 

3.3 Commission’s Informal Group of Experts 

The Commission’s informal group of experts for the implementation of the EU Anti-Torture 
Regulation was set up in 2021, in line with the conclusions of the 2020 review report on the 
implementation of the Regulation. During the reporting period, the Informal Group of Experts 
provided technical support to the Commission in an advisory capacity on different aspects of 

35 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1. 
36 ATCG meetings took place on 12 October 2020; 10 March, 10 June and 24 November 2021; 12 May and 1 
December 2022; 27 April and 23 November 2023; 6 June and 5 December 2024. 
37 COM (2021) 633 of 14.10.2021 
38 COM (2022) 568 of 31.10.2022 
39 COM (2023) 694 of 8.11.2023 
40 COM (2024) 530 of 19.11.2024 
41 COM (2025) 482 of 12.09.2025 

9 

 
 
 
the Regulation, including the scope of prohibited and regulated goods. In February 2025, the 
term of office of the Group was renewed for a further period of two years42. 

3.4 Transparency and information 

Article  26(3)  of  the  Regulation  requires  that  EU  Member  States  prepare  a  public,  annual 
activity report, providing information on the number of applications received, on the goods and 
countries concerned by these applications, and on the decisions taken on these applications.  
Austria, Czechia43, Denmark44, Hungary45, Netherlands46, Romania47, Spain48 and Sweden49 
informed the Commission about their public 2024 annual activity reports. The Regulation is 
included in Annex 2 to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland50, which lists the provisions 
of Union law that also apply to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland. The 
United Kingdom also informed it published its 2024 annual activity report51. It should be noted 
that  pursuant  to  Article  26  (3)  of  the  Regulation,  the  public  reports  ‘shall  not  include 
information the disclosure of which a Member State considers to be contrary to the essential 
interests of its security'’. 

A  limited  number  of  competent  national  authorities  have  published  information  on  their 
government website about the rules and regulations applicable to the goods within the scope 
of the Regulation in order to inform economic operators about export authorisation procedures 
and further requirements. 

3.5 Export controls enforcement 

EU Member States are responsible for enforcing export controls. In accordance with Article 33 
of  the  Regulation,  ‘Member  States  shall  lay  down  the  rules  on  penalties  applicable  to 
infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are 
implemented.  The  penalties  provided  for  shall  be  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive.’ 
Hence,  EU  Member  States  develop  national  penalties  applicable  to  infringements  of  the 
Regulation by persons and entities alike.  

These national penalties include both administrative and criminal sanctions, ranging typically 
from pecuniary fines to imprisonment, including confiscation of the goods.  

During the reporting period, the competent authorities did not inform the Commission of any 
infringements of the Regulation. The Regulation does not require the competent authorities to 
do so. 

42https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-
groups/consult?lang=en&groupID=3762 
43Cechia: „Mučicí“ nástroje | MPO 
44Denmark:https://eksportkontrol.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/tilladelser-til-eksport-af-produkter-fordelt-paa-
kategorinumre 
45Hungary:https://mkeh.gov.hu/index.php?name=OE-
eLibrary&file=download&keret=N&showheader=N&id=292660  
46Netherlands: Het Nederlander exportcontrolebeleid in 2024 | Rapport | Rijksoverheid.nl 
47Romania: https://economie.gov.ro/structura-organizatorica/directia-politici-comerciale/ 
48Spain:https://comercio.gob.es/ImportacionExportacion/Informes_Estadisticas/Paginas/Hitorico_Material_Defe
nsa.aspx 
49Sweden:https://www.kommerskollegium.se/contentassets/77abf57e47584da190a1537a7ac025d2/arsredovisnin
g-24.pdf 
50 OJ CI 384/1 of 12.11.2019 
51 UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/united-kingdom-strategic-export-controls-annual-report 

10 

 
 
 
3.6 Export authorisations: Key data 

The Commission gathers data from the competent authorities, enabling it to have an overview 
of the export authorisations granted or refused in relation to the controlled goods described in 
Annexes III and IV to the Regulation. 

Drawing on the data from the Commission’s reports for the period 2020-2024, the number of 
export authorisations granted or refused can be summarised as follows52: In 2020, a total of 
247  authorisations  granted  by  11  Member  States  were  reported.  In  2021,  9  Member  States 
reported  that  they  had  granted  a  total  of  275  authorisations.  In  2022,  a  total  of  246 
authorisations granted by 10 Member States were reported. In 2023, 11 Member States reported 
that they had granted a total of 214 authorisations. In 2024, a total of 248 authorisations were 
reported to have been granted by 7 Member States. Hence, the total number of authorisations 
granted over the entire five-year reporting period (2020-2024) amounts to 1230. 

Fifteen Member States informed the Commission that over the reporting period they had not 
received any applications for authorisations pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/125. 

The  Regulation  imposes  an  export  authorisation  requirement  enabling  the  competent 
authorities to check for any indications that the goods, if exported, might be used for torture or 
other  cruel,  inhuman  or  degrading  treatment  or  punishment  (Annex  III)  or  for  capital 
punishment  (Annex  IV).  To  that  end,  Article  20(8)  of  the  Regulation  provides  that  the 
competent  authority should receive ‘complete information  in  particular on the end-user, the 
country of destination and the end-use of the goods’. 

During the five-year reporting period, 42 applications for an export authorisation were reported 
as having been rejected: 23 in 2020, 2 in 2021, 9 in 2022, 6 in 2023 and 2 in 2024.  

It should be noted that not all Member States provide a complete account and/or information 
on  end-users.  Thus,  based  on  the  data  communicated  by  the  competent  authorities,  the 
Commission is unable to have a detailed overview of the end-use of the exports authorised over 
the reporting period. 

Overview: Reported export authorisations granted and refused by Member States over the period 2020-2024 

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

275

247

246

248

214

6

2023

2

2024

23

2020

2

2021

9

2022

Granted

Refused

52 Exports pursuant to the Union general export authorisation (Annex V to the Regulation) are not included in the 
information on the number of authorisations granted by Member States. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
3.7 EU nationals abroad 

The Regulation currently controls or prohibits a range of activities within the territorial scope 
of  the  Regulation53.  While  not  strictly  part  of  the  assessment  of  how  the  Regulation  is 
implemented,  Article  32  of  the  Regulation  envisages  that  the  review  assesses  whether  it  is 
necessary to include the activities of EU nationals abroad within the scope of the Regulation. 
Such  activities  could  potentially  include  brokering,  promotion/marketing  and  provision  of 
technical assistance and training. 

The 2020 review report considered this matter and noted that ‘addressing the issues highlighted 
poses difficulties in relation to the territorial reach of EU jurisdiction’. It further noted that, ‘in 
international  law,  in  principle,  jurisdiction  is  territorial  and  cannot  be  exercised  by  a  State 
outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or 
from  a  convention’.  However,  it  also  states  that  ‘international  law  allows  penalising 
extraterritorial activities of nationals of a State when it comes to criminal offences committed 
outside its territory54. In the case of particularly serious crimes that have been made subject to 
universal jurisdiction either by a multilateral treaty55 or under customary international law such 
as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and torture, a State may exercise jurisdiction 
in respect of crimes irrespective of the location of the crime and irrespective of the nationality 
of the perpetrator or the victim’.  

The  2020  report  concluded  that  unilateral  decisions  to  exercise  jurisdiction  beyond  the  EU 
territory should be carefully considered in light of international law and practice. Given that 
whether a State may lawfully exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction is a matter of international 
law, it is important to vigorously and effectively promote torture-free trade in the appropriate 
international fora so as to extend the global response to the objectives that the Regulation aims 
to  promote.  It  furthermore  noted  that  non-legislative  measures  could  be  explored  to  deter 
certain  inappropriate  activities  of  EU  nationals  and  EU-based  companies  operating  abroad 
(such as promoting or marketing goods and services and providing technical assistance and 
training for an inappropriate or abusive use of law enforcement equipment). Such measures 
could  include,  for  instance,  measures  for  increased  transparency  and  awareness  raising  or 
measures to promote effective compliance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and 
Human Rights. 

The  current  review  exercise  has  confirmed  that  the  conclusions  of  the  2020  review  report 
remain valid. 

4.  ASSESSING THE REGULATION’S IMPLEMENTATION 

4.1 Assessment criteria and data sources 

Incorporating  the  substantive  assessment  criteria  of  Article  32  of  the  Regulation,  the 
Commission  has  assessed  the  Regulation’s  performance  in  line  with  its  Better  Regulation 
Guidelines56, evaluating the following elements: 

-  Relevance: The extent to which the overall objectives of the Regulation, its design and the 

53 Article 34 of the Regulation. 
54See Art. 5 (1) (b) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 
of 1984 ([adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987] 1465 UNTS 112; ‘CAT’). 
55See the Geneva Conventions I–IV (1949). 
56 
how/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation-why-and-

12 

 
 
 
national implementation measures provided for in the Regulation respond to EU priorities 
at the time the Regulation was adopted as well as to current EU priorities. 

-  Efficiency: The  extent  to  which  the  Regulation  is  delivering  efficiently. This  covers  the 
efficiency  of  implementation  by  Member  States  and  the  oversight  by  the  Commission, 
while assessing whether there are any gaps or  duplications in information requirements, 
which could undermine the effectiveness or efficient implementation of the Regulation and 
whether reporting requirements are adequate and proportionate. 

-  Effectiveness: The extent to which the Regulation is delivering on its objectives and EU 

priorities. 

-  Coherence and complementarity: The extent to which the Regulation facilitates coherence 

and complementarity with other relevant EU and Member State initiatives. 

-  EU added value: The extent to which the Regulation adds value to individual measures by 

EU Member States. 

The  main  sources  of  information  for  gathering  evidence  for  the  assessment  were  written 
submissions, namely in the form of replies to the questionnaires/surveys57, and interviews with 
key stakeholders, including the competent authorities of the EU Member States, the Informal 
Group of Experts and other specialised non-governmental organisations (NGOs), international 
organisations  such  as  the  UN  and  the  Council  of  Europe  as  well  as  different  Commission 
Directorates-General. The assessment of the data and information gathered led to the following 
findings. 

4.2 Relevance 

4.2.1 Policy considerations 

The Regulation, as initially adopted in 2005, responded to the need for ‘Union rules on trade 
with third countries in goods which could be used for the purpose of capital punishment, and 
in goods which could be used for the purpose of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading 
treatment or punishment.’ These rules aimed to fill an identified gap in EU human rights-based 
trade controls and constituted the world’s first binding instrument specifically addressing the 
issue. In order to maintain its relevance, the Annexes of the Regulation were amended in 2011, 
2014, 2016 and 2025. The stakeholders, which took part in the review exercise, have confirmed 
the continuing relevance of the Regulation to its priority of promoting torture-free trade, hence 
contributing  to  EU’s  objective  of  eradicating  torture  and  torture  and  cruel,  inhumane  or 
degrading treatment or punishment globally58.  

In addition to constituting the world’s first operational framework to regulate trade in torture-
related  goods,  its  current  relevance  is  confirmed  by  the  role  it  has  played  as  a  source  of 
inspiration for work in this area by other countries and organisations (see Section 2.2.). 

57  Twenty-three  Member  States  provided  feedback  via  the  written  questionnaire,  as  well  as  one  international 
organisation  and  three  NGOs,  which  are  members  of  the  Commission’s  informal  group  of  experts.  The 
Commission has also received submissions from specialised NGOs. 
58 EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy (2020-2027) 

13 

 
 
 
 
4.2.2 Relevance of goods and services covered 

The  Regulation  currently  covers  a  broad  range  of  goods  related  to  capital  punishment  and 
torture. 

In order to  keep its relevance, the list  of goods  described in  the Annexes  to the Regulation 
needs to stay up to date and be subject to regular review. The Commission’s 2020 review report 
concluded that the list of goods needs to respond to changes in the international security market 
and in the use and misuse of law enforcement equipment as well as to emerging trends and 
challenges related to capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment 
or punishment. For this purpose, the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/928 of 21 
May 2025 updated the list of goods described in the Annexes of the Regulation (Section 3.1.2). 
Overall, stakeholders taking part in the review process have highlighted the relevance of the 
scope of the Regulation in terms of goods and services.  

The Commission noted broad support among stakeholders for the current architecture of the 
Regulation, distinguishing between inherently abusive goods, whose trade is prohibited (Annex 
II), and goods that can have legitimate uses, whose trade is regulated (Annex III and Annex 
IV).  The  current  lists  of  goods,  as  recently  amended,  is  widely  viewed  as  comprehensive, 
appropriate and well-targeted. Several Member States and NGOs, which took part in the review 
exercise, stressed the importance of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/928 to 
maintain the relevance of the Regulation. The UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Ms. Alice Jill 
Edwards, welcomed the adoption of the Commission Delegated Regulation, considering that it 
was  ‘encouraging  to  see  such  progress  in  a  rather  bleak  period  where  security  forces  are 
routinely  overstepping  the  rules  of  human  rights-compatible  crowd  control  methods’.  She 
further  stated  that  the  updated  Regulation  ‘will  significantly  strengthen  protections  against 
torture and other ill-treatment facilitated by means of weaponry and equipment’59. 

Two  Member  States  considered  that,  while  the  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  is  a 
significant step in the right direction, continued vigilance, monitoring and information sharing 
remains essential. In this regard, one Member State called for putting in place a mechanism for 
Member States to regularly share information on emerging trends in the misuse of goods, new 
types  of  equipment,  or  suspicious  activities.  While  confirming  the  relevance  of  the  current 
scope  of  the  Regulation,  another  Member  State  highlighted  that  product  coverage  should 
remain firmly anchored in evidence-based assessments of risk and misuse and be mindful of 
the wider trade policy context. 

Two human rights NGOs engaging in the review exercise referred to the prevalence of extra-
custodial torture and other ill-treatment in the context of policing of public assembly. Against 
this background, they recommended that the scope of goods described in the Annexes to the 
Regulation  should  be  further  widened  to  bring  the  Regulation  fully  in  line  with  the 
recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture’s 2023 report. According to one 
NGO, some goods currently listed under Annex III could be moved to Annex II, such as certain 
direct contact electric shock devices, multiple kinetic impact projectiles, multi-barrel launchers 
and some multi-point restraints. Other goods could be added to Annex II, such as millimetre 
wave weapons, and others could be added to Annex III, including ordinary handcuffs, hand-
held  striking  weapons  specially  designed  for  law  enforcement  purposes,  notably  standard 
batons, as well as some acoustic devices and weapons and stun grenades. 

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/08/un-expert-welcomes-revised-eu-regulations-against-trade-

59 
instruments-torture 

14 

 
 
 
One NGO considered that the Regulation largely focuses on physical goods, neglecting non-
physical tools, such as surveillance software, biometric databases, and cyber-control systems, 
which are increasingly used to facilitate torture or ill-treatment. 

In the case of Annex IV goods, the Regulation lists certain chemicals/medicines intended to 
save and improve the lives and health of patients, but which might be sought for use in lethal 
injection. Unlike the goods listed in Annexes II and III, those types of chemicals and medicines 
fulfil an essential lifesaving function and therefore measures that might limit their trade need 
to be carefully assessed to prevent such trade in legitimate lifesaving medical supplies from 
being negatively impacted.  

According  to  one  organisation  engaged  in  preventing  the  misuse  of  medicines  in  lethal 
injections, any premature expansion of the Annex IV list could place an unnecessary strain on 
the supply of vital lifesaving  medicines, but continuous vigilance is needed. Of note in this 
regard is the self-regulation regime adopted by several EU companies, which is considered to 
be  preventing  an  inappropriate  use  of  drugs  exported  from  the  EU.  The  same  organisation 
underlined the importance of closely following developments around the use of nitrogen gas in 
executions.  In this  context, one Member State suggested to  consider  adding nitrogen  gas  to 
Annex IV to the Regulation. 

In the review exercise, stakeholders also confirmed the relevance of the services included in 
the  scope  of  the  Regulation,  i.e.  brokering  services,  technical  assistance,  training  and 
advertising related to the goods covered by the Regulation. One human rights NGO assessed 
that the Regulation should also cover the supply of technical assistance that could facilitate or 
be used to commit torture and other ill-treatment, regardless of the equipment addressed under 
the Regulation. However, it should be noted that the supply of technical assistance, including 
training,  is  only  prohibited  or  controlled  when  it  is  directly  for  equipment  covered  by  the 
Regulation (Annex II or Annex III).  

When assessing the relevance of goods and services covered, consideration could also be given 
to adding a targeted end-use or catch-all clause to the Regulation. Human rights NGOs engaged 
in the review exercise have advocated adding such a clause. In concrete terms, such a clause 
would allow individual EU Member States to halt a specific transfer of a certain item that is 
not specifically listed in the Regulation’s Annexes II or III. Such an item would have to be 
found  to  clearly  have  no  practical  use  other  than  capital  punishment,  torture  and  other  ill 
treatment. The clause could also cover cases where there is evidence that the potential transfer 
of the unlisted item would result in its use for such purposes.  

4.3 Efficiency  

4.3.1 Authorisations and refusals 

Drawing on the data presented in this report and the previous Commission Report on export 
authorisations in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 (see Section 3.5), it is worth noting that 
there is a significant number of Member States (15) reporting no request for authorisations over 
the  five-year  period.  Additionally,  some  Member  States  report  significantly  more 
authorisations than others do. 

The data presented also show a limited number of refusals of authorisations for goods (42 over 
the  five-year  reporting  period),  with  the  services  covered  by  the  Regulation  not  being  the 
subject  of  any  authorisations  (or  refusals).  Implementation  is  the  responsibility  of  the 
competent authorities in the Member States.  

15 

 
 
Internal  procedures  for  granting  export  authorisations  may  vary  in  the  Member  States. 
According to the information provided by Member States’ authorities, these procedures often 
entail consultations among different Ministries, authorities and bodies, and decisions are made 
on the basis of an  assessment, inter alia, of the end-use,  end-user and the risk of diversion. 
Sources of information underpinning such assessment include a wide variety of open-source 
information,  including  UN,  EU,  Council  of  Europe  reports  and  reports  from  civil  society 
organisations, as well as available national and international court judgments. Some Member 
States  also  mentioned  analyses  carried  out  by  their  authorities  and  Embassies  as  well  as 
previous denials by other EU Member States. 

While available information on the overall national risk assessments is limited, it is clear that 
these vary in different Member States. In this regard, a number of Member States and NGOs, 
which participated in the review process, referred to the need to harmonise national practices 
with regards to the procedures for authorising/denying export authorisations. 

From the information presented above, there appears to be a need for some form of European 
Union guidance or best practices on the implementation of the Regulation (e.g. regarding the 
definition of goods covered, risk assessments, refusals, notifications etc.) and for the competent 
authorities to provide more information on how the Regulation is being applied in practice. 

4.3.2 Trade fairs 

Article 8 of the Regulation prohibits the display or offer for sale of any goods listed in Annex 
II in an exhibition or fair taking place in the EU.  

Some Member States permit, facilitate and/or co-organise law enforcement equipment trade 
fairs or exhibitions. Two human rights NGOs, which took part in the review process, have been 
monitoring one of these fairs and, on some occasions, have found that goods covered by Annex 
II to the Regulation were displayed. The NGOs registered good cooperation with the organisers 
of the fair, who removed the reported goods and introduced measures to prevent and address 
the display of goods covered by Annex II. 

None of the Member States that have engaged in the review process has a specific protocol or 
procedure in place to ensure compliance with Article 8 of the Regulation in exhibitions or trade 
fairs. One Member State that took part in the review process suggested the development of a 
best practice guidance for Member States’ authorities and companies involved in organising 
trade fairs featuring law enforcement equipment. This has been also proposed by a number of 
NGOs contributing to the review process. 

4.3.3 Reporting 

As indicated in Section 3.3, Article 26 of the Regulation sets out the reporting requirements of 
competent authorities. All Member States, which took part in the review process, consider such 
reporting requirements adequate and proportionate. 

However,  only  eight  Member  States  confirmed  that  they  have  published  their  2024  annual 
activity reports in line with Article 26(3) of the Regulation. Pursuant to Article 26(3) of the 
Regulation, the public reports 'shall not include information the disclosure of which a Member 
State  considers  to  be  contrary  to  the  essential  interests  of  its  security'.  The  level  of  detail 
included  in  those  annual  reports  may  not  always  allow  for  an  accurate  assessment  of  the 
Regulation’s implementation at national level. Few Member States provide publicly available 
information on procedures for the risk of goods or on follow-up measures taken to monitor the 
end-use nor do they indicate the volume and value of related goods or whether penalties were 

16 

 
 
applied  for  breaches  of  the  Regulation.  Similarly,  on  the  notification  and  consultation 
mechanism of Article 23, limited information is available. 

Article 26(4) requires the Commission to publish an annual activity report. All Member States 
have been providing information to the Commission to draft these reports. During the reporting 
period,  annual  reports  were  published  concerning  Member  States’  export  authorisations  in 
2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024. NGOs contributing to the review exercise considered the 
annual  report  by  the  Commission  an  essential  tool  to  ensure  transparency  regarding  the 
implementation of the Regulation, particularly in the absence of national reports made publicly 
available  by  several  Member  States.  They  recommended  that  further  relevant  information 
should be incorporated in the annual report by the Commission, notably with regards to the 
granted and refused authorisations, including, for example, the end-use, value and volume of 
the goods.  

4.4 Effectiveness 

Overall, the Regulation has met the specific objective of more effectively controlling EU trade 
with third countries in goods that could be used for capital punishment or torture and other 
cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment or punishment. Stakeholders taking part in the review 
exercise highlighted the preventive and normative impact of the Regulation. Several Member 
States considered that the Regulation has successfully prevented the trade in goods related to 
torture and other ill treatment, dissuading operators from exporting prohibited goods or goods 
that  are  likely  to  be  misused  in  third  countries.  According  to  a  Member  State’s  authority, 
effective upstream deterrence is one of the factors explaining the current limited extent of trade 
in goods covered by the Regulation.  

An NGO considered that the Regulation has reduced aspects of the trade in some torture-related 
goods. In particular, it pointed to a reduction in the marketing of goods covered by Annex II at 
arms fairs and on the internet by EU companies, since the entry into force of the Regulation. 
According to an NGO engaged in preventing the misuse of medicines in lethal injections, the 
Regulation  has  had  a  significant  and  positive  impact  in  preventing  the  export  of  certain 
European  medicines  for  use  in  lethal  injection,  also  reinforcing  industry-led  controls  and 
providing a clear legal framework to support companies in safeguarding their supply chains. 

Nonetheless, the NGOs taking part in the review exercise observed that the limited amount of 
publicly available information makes it more difficult to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the 
Regulation.  In this  regard,  more information  on the imposition of penalties  by EU Member 
States under Article 33 of the Regulation  would be of interest  to  better assess the extent to 
which breaches of the Regulation are being identified and penalised. 

Overall,  stakeholders  considered  that  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Regulation  itself  raised 
awareness among operators about the controls in place in the EU. In addition, several Member 
States include information on the main provisions of the Regulation on the website of their 
relevant  Ministry/authority.  Six  Member  States  have  also  indicated  that  they  organise 
awareness  raising  events  and/or  targeted  outreach.  One  Member  State  and  three  NGOs 
recommended further awareness raising activities to better promote the Regulation and ensure 
its provisions are well understood by stakeholders. An NGO suggested that the Commission 
should  provide  standard  text  and  additional  guidance  around  the  implementation  of  the 
Regulation, so as to facilitate awareness among State actors and ensure consistency between 
national practices.  

The broader goal of helping to prevent capital punishment and torture and other cruel, inhuman 
or degrading treatment or punishment in third countries is more difficult to assess, as there are 

17 

 
 
many other contributing factors. The restriction of trade in these goods and services is only one 
element in the fight against torture. Furthermore, torture and other ill-treatment are not only 
reliant on sophisticated tools; often the most basic and easily available instruments, e.g. batons, 
truncheons, standard handcuffs and excessive physical force are used.  

4.5 Coherence and complementarity 

To  ensure  complementarity,  the  Regulation  makes  specific  reference  to  other  related  EU 
instruments or frameworks and expressly excludes the goods they cover from the scope of the 
Regulation. The Regulation covers materials not listed in any other legal instrument and, in 
that  respect,  is  complementary  to  other  European  regulatory  frameworks.  The  Regulation 
avoids targeting goods related to other Regulations and for which an authorisation system is 
already in place, i.e.: 

i. 
ii. 
iii. 

firearms controlled by Regulation (EU) No 258/2012; 
dual-use items controlled by Regulation (EC) No 428/2009; 
goods  controlled  in  accordance  with  Common  Position  2008/944/CFSP  and  the 
associated common military list60. 

While this approach to ensuring complementarity between export control instruments has been 
largely successful, some inconsistencies have been raised by human rights NGOs taking part 
in the review exercise. Some riot control agents, such as pepper spray and Oleoresin Capsicum 
(OC), are included in the Regulation, while others listed in the EU common military list, such 
as common tear gases (CS gas, CR gas and CN gas), are not, even though these are frequently 
used to facilitate or conduct torture and other ill treatment. It would be appropriate to explore 
how best to ensure that both instruments are more consistent, that licence approval processes 
are uniform and that denial notifications are circulated under both control regimes. 

Regarding its broader EU human rights objective, the Regulation is largely coherent with and 
complementary to other relevant EU instruments and initiatives. There is, however, room for 
greater synergies between human rights monitoring work in third countries on the one hand, 
and controls on the end use of goods and services exported under the Regulation on the other.   

There has been a high degree of coherence and complementarity with initiatives on a global 
and  regional  level  (Global  Alliance,  Council  of  Europe).  During  the  reporting  period,  the 
European  Union,  at  both  the  technical  and  diplomatic  levels,  has  been  at  the  forefront  of 
initiatives  to  raise  international  governmental  awareness  of  the  trade  in  equipment  used  for 
torture, ill treatment and the death penalty. The EU continued engaging on this issue with third 
countries, including in the context of the Global Alliance. 

4.6 EU added value 

EU  added  value  looks  for  changes  due  to  the  EU  intervention,  over  and  above  what  could 
reasonably have been expected from national actions by the Member States.  

Trade  is  an  area  of  exclusive  EU  competence  pursuant  to  Article  207  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the European Union. The Regulation’s EU added value is evident, given that 

60 Common Military List of the European Union adopted by the Council on 24 February 2025 (equipment covered 
by Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP defining common rules governing the control of exports of military 
technology and equipment), OJ C, C/2025/1499. 

18 

 
 
 
 
the Regulation falls within an area where the EU has exclusive powers and that the objectives 
of the Regulation can therefore be best achieved at EU level.  

Although  the  Regulation  allows  Member  States  to  take  additional  measures,  the  measures 
provided for by the Regulation can be considered broadly appropriate. 

4.7 Anti-Torture Coordination Group (ATCG) 

The  ATCG  has  its  legal  basis  in  the  Regulation  itself.  Chaired  by  the  Commission,  its 
composition  is  limited  to  one  representative  appointed  by  each  Member  State.  The  ATCG 
covers a specific set of tasks: it can examine questions concerning the Regulation’s application, 
including, the exchange of information on administrative practices. The ATCG can consult, on 
an ad hoc basis, with exporters, brokers, suppliers of technical assistance and other relevant 
stakeholders concerned by the Regulation. According to recital 48 of the Regulation, the ATCG 
has a specific role in preparing delegated acts, as Member States are formally consulted through 
the  ATCG  on  draft  delegated  acts  submitted  by  the  Commission  in  accordance  with  the 
principles laid down in the Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making.  

Member States, which contributed to the review process, recognised the key role played by the 
ATCG  to  ensure  an  effective  and  consistent  implementation  of  the  Regulation.  Overall, 
Member  States  considered  the  ATCG  as  a  useful  platform  to  coordinate  and  exchange 
information and best practices. The ATCG is also viewed by some Member States as the forum 
to discuss challenges with regards to the implementation of the Regulation, including issues 
related  to  enforcement  and  legal  and  regulatory  interpretation  as  well  as  coherence  and 
consistency among Member States’ national practices. 

In this regard, two Member States suggested that ATCG meetings could include presentations 
of national practices, with specific case studies, notably by Member States receiving higher 
numbers of applications under the Regulation. Three other Member States recommended that 
the  ATCG  should  regularly  discuss  specific  third  country  situations  and  exchange  on 
methodology and indicators for evaluating human rights risks in destination countries. The role 
of ATCG in market surveillance, through regular exchanges on technological developments, 
possibly  warranting updates to  the Annexes  to  the Regulation,  was also highlighted. In this 
context, some Member States encouraged closer engagement with civil society, mentioning, in 
particular,  the  work  of  the  Informal  Group  of  Experts.  This  aspect  was  also  highlighted  by 
some NGOs, which are members of the Informal Group of Experts and took part in the review 
process. More specifically, it was suggested to ensure a more substantial linkage between the 
Informal Group of Experts and the ATCG, including by organising regular presentations by 
members of the Informal Group of Experts at ATCG meetings.  

5.  CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD 

The  Regulation  was  adopted  to  create  a  European  Union  instrument  on  trade  with  third 
countries in goods and related services that could be used for capital punishment, torture and 
other  cruel,  inhuman  or  degrading  treatment  or  punishment.  It  has  been  instrumental  in 
promoting respect for human life and human rights.  

The Regulation continues to fill an identified gap in EU human rights-based trade controls. It 
makes  a  positive  contribution  in  meeting  its  main  objective  of  taking  effective,  concrete 
measures against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  

19 

 
 
The review has confirmed that, overall, the Regulation is being implemented satisfactorily 
and continues to be fit for purpose. It is deemed to be sufficiently robust, and a fully-fledged 
legislative update is therefore not deemed necessary at this stage.  

On the other hand, the review has shown that national practices for the implementation of the 
Regulation  may  vary  between  Member  States,  notably  with  regards  to  the  procedures 
underpinning decisions to grant or deny export authorisations. In this regard, non-legislative 
measures in support of a more effective and consistent implementation of certain provisions of 
the Regulation could be further explored. 

The Commission will explore the possibility of developing  a checklist with regards to risk 
assessments, including methodology for evaluating human rights risks in destination countries. 
The possibility of developing a specific checklist on trade fairs and exhibitions protocols 
could  also  be  explored.  Moreover,  exchanges  of  best  practices  among  Member  States, 
including within the ATCG, will be further encouraged. 

The  scope  of  goods  covered  by  the  Regulation  should  continue  keeping  up  with  evolving 
technological and market developments and addressing changes in the nature of the use, 
and  misuse,  of  law  enforcement  equipment  as  well  as  trends  in  torture  and  other  ill-
treatment.  

In this respect, the review has confirmed the relevance of the goods and services covered 
by the Regulation, as amended by the Commission Delegated Regulation of May 2025.  

However, the need to ensure continued vigilance and regularly discuss the potential further 
expansion  of  the  goods  covered  by  the  Annexes  to  the  Regulation,  in  line  with  the  above-
mentioned trends, has clearly emerged during the review process. Among others, findings of 
the competent bodies of the UN and of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, 
inhuman  or  degrading  treatment  or  punishment  will  continue  informing  such  exercise. 
Balancing  human  rights  considerations  against  the  need  to  protect  the  trade  of  legitimate 
lifesaving medical supplies when assessing the opportunity (or not) to update the scope of 
chemicals covered should also continue to be carefully assessed.  

The Commission will study the feasibility of an informal alert mechanism within the ATCG, 
with more systematic sharing of information and analysis as well as exchanges on technological 
and market developments and their use by law enforcement in third countries. The Informal 
Group of Experts, whose important role in providing technical advice has been recognised in 
the review exercise, could feed into this process through the submission of reports or ad hoc 
oral briefings. 

Ways of more closely monitoring the end-use of exported goods should be further explored. 
There  is  also  room  for  greater  synergies  between  human  rights  monitoring  work  in  third 
countries on the one hand and controls on the end-use of goods and services exported under 
the Regulation on the other.  

The need for greater transparency and accountability, notably by publishing annual activity 
reports, is also recognised. Furthermore, the review highlights the need for more information 
sharing about how the Regulation is being implemented, notably as regards risk assessments 
and the policy on licensing. Additional relevant information could potentially be incorporated 
in  the  annual  reporting  exercise  by  the  Commission,  where  relevant,  including  on  end-use, 
infringements and penalties. 

As the world’s first legally binding regulatory instrument in this area, the Regulation has served 
as  an  example  for  the  development  of  similar  trade  measures  by  third  countries  and 
international organisations. The EU should continue sharing its experience with the Regulation 

20 

 
 
with  partner countries  and organisations,  which  are  interested to  adopt  measures to  prevent 
trade  in  torture-related  goods.  As  co-Chair  of  the  Global  Alliance,  the  EU  will  continue  to 
support torture-free trade initiatives at the multilateral level, including in UN fora.  

21