Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I N T E R N AT ION A L L AW
General Editors: Professor Philip Alston, Professor of International Law
at New York University, and Professor Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor
of Public International Law in the University of Oxford and Fellow of
All Souls College, Oxford.
A Commentary
M A N FR E D NOWA K
E L I Z A BE T H Mc A RT H U R
¹⁴⁵ See the US report in accordance with Art. 19 CAT of 13 January 2006, CAT/C/48/Add.3/
Rev.1.
¹⁴⁶ See Rasul v. Bush (03–334) 542 U.S. 466 (2004).
¹⁴⁷ See E/CN.4/2006/120, § 11.
¹⁴⁸ CAT/C/USA/CO/2, § 15. See also the concluding observations of the Committee on the
report of the UK, above, 3.1.
¹⁴⁹ See CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1, § 10.
¹⁵⁰ See, e.g., Nowak, CCPR-Commentary, 157 et seq. with further references.
¹⁵¹ E/CN.4/1314 (1979), 11, § 53.
¹⁵² See e.g. Strauss, (2004) 48 NY L Sch L Rev 201–274, 203; see also Dershowitz, (2004)
48 NY L Sch L Rev 275–294. Memorandum from Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney-General
for the Office of Legal Council at the US Department of Justice, to Alberto R. Gonzales,
Counsel to the President, (1 August 2002) (Bybee Memorandum). For a critical analysis, see
e.g. Rouillard, (2005) 21(1) Am U Int’l L Rev 9–41; see also Goldman, (2004) 12(1) Hum
Rts Brief 1. See also Nowak, (2006) 28 HRQ 809 with references. Long before 11 September
2001, there were discussions among specialists about whether a restriction on the ban on torture
should be authorized for preventive purposes. See e.g., in Germany, Winfried Brugger, a pro-
fessor at Heidelberg University, who raised the issue as early as 1996. In 2000, following a case of
abduction, this professor once more called for the ban on torture to be made more flexible in ‘excep-
tional’ circumstances. Brugger, (2000) 48 AJCL 661–678.
¹⁵³ E/CN.4/1314, Add. 3 at 3, § 6.