Survivor Voices, State Responsibility: UK Law and the Absolute Prohibition on Torture
Read Dr. Alice Edwards’ full speech
On 11 November 2025, we hosted a crucial discussion in Westminster on how the UK can align its domestic laws with its international obligations to prevent torture. The event, co-hosted by REDRESS, the Survivor Advisory Group, and the All-Party Parliamentary Human Rights Group, featured remarks from Dr. Alice Edwards, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, ahead of the UK’s review before the United Nations Committee against Torture due in 2026. Her address put survivor experiences front and centre and highlighted urgent gaps in UK law that risk undermining accountability.
Dr. Edwards began by framing the UK’s long and complex history with torture, from medieval devices in the Tower of London to colonial abuses and the trans-Atlantic slave trade, contrasted with its role in establishing landmark human rights protections such as Habeas Corpus, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights.
“You could say that the prohibition on torture is the most basic of all human rights – it underpins the entire human rights project – that project is based on an overarching obligation to treat everyone – no matter who they are, to which God they worship, or what they may have done – with dignity and respect for their humanity,” Dr. Edwards said.
Legal gaps threatening accountability
In October 2025, Dr. Edwards and three other UN Special Rapporteurs raised concerns with the UK Government about several laws that limit investigations and prosecutions of acts of torture, and which impede full and effective reparation for victims.
These include the National Security Act 2023, the Overseas Operations Act 2021, the Justice and Security Act 2013, the International Criminal Court Act 2001, and the Criminal Justice Act 1988. In a further letter, she and other Special Rapporteurs addressed the Joint Framework addressing the legacy of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
She highlighted three overarching issues:
- Defences, immunities, and statutes of limitation. Provisions that shield officials, allow defences of superior orders, or impose strict time limits conflict with the Convention against Torture. Accountability must never be constrained. Laws such as the National Security Act 2023, the Overseas Operations Act 2021, and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 risk creating impunity.
- Restrictions on compensation – UK law currently allows reduced compensation for torture survivors, or denies it completely in some circumstances. This conflicts with Article 14 of the Convention, which guarantees survivors a right to full and adequate redress.
- Procedural barriers – Legal tools like the Closed Material Procedure under the Justice and Security Act 2013 can restrict access to evidence, undermining survivors’ ability to challenge the evidence and defences, and can impair victim’s right to redress and compensation. She argued that such procedures must be used rarely, be tightly scrutinised, and conform to international human rights standards.
Prison system concerns: IPP sentences
Another urgent issue Dr. Edwards highlighted is the continued use of indeterminate Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences. Thousands of individuals in England and Wales have suffered severe psychological harm under these sentences, which may amount to “psychological torture.” Despite some government efforts to mitigate harm, IPP remains a stark example of how laws and policies can inflict ongoing suffering on individuals and families.
Export controls and modern torture tools
Dr. Edwards also raised concerns about UK export controls which apply to law enforcement equipment capable of causing torture. Items such as electrified batons, caged beds, and multi-projectile launchers remain in use globally. While the UK has partially aligned with updated EU regulations, gaps persist.
“It is not often that there are opportunities to stop torture at its source,” she said. “This important work is not anti-business or anti-trade, it is anti-torture.”
Steps forward
Dr. Edwards reminded parliamentarians of the crucial role they have in ending impunity and enabling justice and reparation for survivors.
“The laws and policies enacted in this Parliament profoundly shape the prospects for justice for victims and survivors of torture and other inhumane acts,” she said. “They can alleviate suffering or deepen it. They can promote accountability or impede it. These are the choices at hand.”
Dr. Edwards concluded with actionable recommended that Parliament:
- Remove legal barriers to accountability, including provisions that create immunities, defenses, jurisdictional limitations, or restrictive time limits.
- Guarantee full and fair redress for survivors by eliminating statutory restrictions on compensation.
- Reform procedures that limit access to evidence, ensuring victims can fully exercise their rights to truth, accountability and reparation.
She also recommended that Government officials:
- Establish a dedicated, cross-government anti-torture strategy covering prevention, justice, and accountability.
- Set a clear timetable for legislative reforms ahead of the UN Committee against Torture review.
- Ensure survivors participate in all relevant policy and legislative processes.
Her message was clear: survivors are not merely beneficiaries of justice; they are essential experts in achieving it. Listening to their experiences strengthens laws, makes policies more effective, and ensures the UK meets its international obligations.
Dr. Edwards’ address reminds us that national security concerns can never nothing can justify weakening safeguards against torture. Parliament has the opportunity to close legal gaps, strengthen accountability, and uphold the UK’s long-standing commitment to human dignity. Survivors’ voices must lead the way.