Opinion ID: 1463528
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: History of the CAT

Text: The ratification history of the CAT and its subsequent enactment into domestic law have been thoroughly examined. See Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123,129-34 (3d Cir.2005); In re J-E-, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 294-99; see generally J. Herman Burgers & Hans Danelius, The United Nations Convention Against Torture: A Handbook on the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1988). While we see no need to repeat that examination here, some discussion of the history of the CAT is necessary to our analysis. The CAT was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984. [6] See Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. It has as its stated purpose to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world. Id. pmbl. To accomplish this goal, Article 2 of the CAT requires [e]ach State Party [to] take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent such acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. Id. Art. 2(1). Additionally, Article 3 provides that [n]o State Party shall expel, return (` refouler ') or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. Id. Art. 3(1). The CAT defines torture as: any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or 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, whether 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 incident to lawful sanctions. Id. Art. 1(1). President Reagan signed the CAT on April 18, 1988, and sent it to the Senate for advice and consent on May 20, 1988. Id. at iii. Importantly, President Reagan (and later President George H.W. Bush) proposed, and the Senate eventually adopted, a number of reservations, understandings, and declarations pertaining to the CAT, two of which are relevant to this case. First, with respect to the definition of torture under Article 1, President Bush proposed the understanding that in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering. S. Exec. Rep. 101-30, at 9, 36 (1990). Second, President Bush proposed that [t]he United States understands the phrase `where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture' as used in Article 3 of the Convention, to mean `if it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.' Id. at 16. Although the CAT had been signed by the President and ratified by the Senate, it was not self-executing, which means there is no direct right of action for violation of the treaty, only for violation of any domestic law implementing the treaty. Raffington v. Cangemi, 399 F.3d 900, 903 (8th Cir.2005); see also Auguste, 395 F.3d at 132 n. 7 (citing cases). Congress implemented the CAT with the passage of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARRA), Pub.L. No. 105-277, Div. G, Title XXII, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822 (codified as note to 8 U.S.C. § 1231). [7] The first section of FARRA states that [i]t shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture. Id. To achieve this goal, FARRA directs the heads of the appropriate agencies [to] prescribe regulations to implement the obligations of the United States under Article 3 of the [CAT], subject to any reservations, understandings, declarations, and provisos contained in the United States Senate resolution of ratification of the Convention. Id. Pursuant to FARRA, the Department of Justice (DOJ) promulgated regulations setting forth the procedures under which a person could seek relief under the CAT. See Regulations Concerning the Convention Against Torture, 64 Fed.Reg. 8478 (Feb. 19, 1999) (codified at 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c)-.18(a) (2004)). Section 208.18(a) defines the terms to be used in applying the United States' obligations under the CAT, which incorporate the definition of torture contained in Article 1 of the [CAT], subject to the reservations, understandings, declarations, and provisos contained in the United States Senate resolution of ratification of the Convention. 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a). Instead of enumerating acts that could constitute torture, § 208.18(a) combines the Senate's understandings with Article 1 of the CAT to formulate a basic, general definition of torture: (1) Torture is defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. (2) Torture is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that do not amount to torture. (3) Torture does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. . . . (5) In order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering. An act that results in unanticipated or unintended severity of pain and suffering is not torture. . . . (7) Acquiescence of a public official requires that the public official, 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. Id. (emphasis added). The regulations also import the more likely than not standard for proving torture that was contained in both the President's and Senate's understandings of the CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Once a petitioner has met this standard, withholding of removal or deferral of removal is mandatory. [8] 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c)(4), 208.17(a). Thus, all three important documents the United States' understandings of the CAT, the law giving the CAT domestic effect, and the regulations implementing that effect in the immigration context incorporate the understandings of the President and the Senate that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe pain or suffering.