U.S. Legal Obligations
The United States is bound under both international law and U.S. domestic legislation not to send a person to a place where he or she is at risk of torture. This nonrefoulement obligation is absolute, and admits of no exception under any circumstances.
Convention Against Torture
The United States signed the U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment41(hereinafter CAT) in April 1988, and ratified the treaty in October 1994. U.S. ratification was subject to certain declarations, reservations, and understandings, including that the Convention was not self-executing, and therefore required domestic implementing legislation to take effect.42
Article 3 of the CAT establishes the obligation of nonrefoulement in cases in which a person would be at risk of torture if sent to a given country. Article 3(1) specifically provides that no state 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. Article 3(2) further requires a sending government to take into consideration the existence of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights when assessing the risk of torture.43
The United States added an understanding to article 3 of the CAT, indicating that it would interpret the phrase where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture to mean if it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.44 The more likely than not standard has been incorporated into U.S. immigration regulations that govern a determination to grant withholding of removal on CAT grounds.45 This standard is more restrictive than the interpretation of the U.N. Human Rights Committee.46 However, given that it is framed not as a reservation but as an understanding that seeks to clarify the meaning of terms used in the CAT, the U.S. understanding has generally not been viewed as an attempt to derogate from the nonrefoulement obligation of article 3.47 The U.S. government has not based its current rendition policy on a claim that its understanding of Article 3 allows it to transfer persons to a risk of torture in contravention of the international norm, and therefore the understanding has not been a focus of concern regarding current U.S. rendition practices.
The Bush Administration has recently set out its understanding of its obligations under article 3 of the CAT in its report to the U.N. Committee Against Torture, which it submitted on May 6, 2005.48 After acknowledging its nonrefoulement obligation, the U.S. government states in the report that it:
Is aware of allegations that it has transferred individuals to third countries where they have been tortured. The United States does not transfer persons to countries where the United States believes it is more likely than not that they will be tortured. This policy applies to all components of the United States government. The United States obtains assurances, as appropriate, from the foreign government to which a detainee is transferred that it will not torture the individual being transferred. If assurances were not considered sufficient when balanced against treatment concerns, the United States would not transfer the person to the control of that government unless the concerns were satisfactorily resolved.49
In the immigrationcontext, the U.S. report to the Committee Against Torture states that the U.S. government relies on assurances in a very small number of cases and only when doing so is consistent with Article 3 of the CAT.50 In extradition cases, the decision to seek assurances is made on a case-by-case basis.51 With respect to transfers from U.S. detention at Guantanamo Bay, the report describes U.S. policy in terms consistent with the general policy above, noting that both returns to risk of torture under the CAT and to persecution under the Refugee Convention standard are taken into account. The report refers to circumstances in which the Department of Defense has elected not to transfer detainees to their country of origin because of torture concerns."52 This language undoubtedly refers to the nearly two dozen Chinese Uighurs held at Guantanamo Bay.53
The prohibition on refoulement can also be rooted in the notion of complicity in torture. Article 4 of the CAT makes clear that the crime of torture encompasses not only direct acts of torture, but also participation and complicity in torture.54 The concept of accomplice liability is well established in U.S. domestic law as well.55 In addition, a state may be in breach of its international obligations by means of knowingly assisting in the unlawful act of another state.56
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights57 (hereinafter ICCPR), ratified by the U.S. on June 8, 1992, provides in article 7 that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This guarantee is nonderogable, i.e. it remains in full force even in times of emergency that threaten the life of the nation. The Human Rights Committee, which monitors implementation of the ICCPR by national governments, has interpreted the Conventions prohibition on torture and ill-treatment to include the nonrefoulement obligation: In the view of the Committee, State parties must not expose individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of their extradition, expulsion or refoulement.58
Moreover, in March 2004, the Human Rights Committee adopted General Comment No. 31 on ICCPR article 2 (concerning nondiscrimination) regarding The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant. Paragraph 12 reads:
. . . the article 2 obligation requiring that States Parties respect and ensure the Covenant rights for all persons in their territory and all persons under their control entails an obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory, where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 [right to life] and 7 [torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment] of the Covenant, either in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed. The relevant judicial and administrative authorities should be made aware of the need to ensure compliance with the Covenant obligations in such matters.59
It is important to note that such irreparable harm, in accordance with ICCPR article 7, expressly includes cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Other International Instruments and Mechanisms
1. U.N. Refugee Convention
The nonrefoulement obligation is also a core principle of international refugee law. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (Refugee Convention) require that no state shall expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.60 The United States is a party to the 1967 Protocol, and has implemented its international obligations in U.S. domestic law through the Refugee Act of 1980.61
Unlike the CAT and ICCPR, the prohibition against refoulement under the Refugee Convention and Protocol is not absolute and exceptions to its protections are permitted in very narrow circumstances.62 Any person excluded from refugee status or continuing protection from refoulement as a result of any one of these exceptions, however, retains the right to claim protection from return or transfer to risk of torture or ill-treatment under other international instruments, such as the CAT, as well as under customary international law.
2. International Humanitarian Law
International humanitarian law prohibits torture and ill-treatment of combatants and civilians, in all circumstances of international and non-international armed conflict.63
The Geneva Conventions explicitly permit the transfer of prisoners of war (POWs) and civilians only to states that are parties to the conventions and willing to comply with the protections codified in them.64 The humanitarian law prohibition of torture and ill-treatment covers virtually all persons who may be detained in situations of armed conflict, including unprivileged combatants or civilians who take up arms. But even in situations of armed conflict, certain human rights norms, including the norm against torture and ill-treatment as well as refoulement to such abuse, continue to apply because of their nonderogable nature. As a result, no person is left unprotected at any time, regardless of nationality, status as a combatant, or the characterization of hostilities.
The prohibition on torture and refoulement under international humanitarian law is important to note in the context of the U.S. global campaign against terrorism. President Bush has recently attempted to defend U.S. rendition policy based in part on an ongoing state of war. Although he claimed the policy complies with the law because we expect the countries where we send somebody not to torture65, this assertion ignores the well-documented records of torture by receiving governments and the absolute nature of the prohibition on refoulement. Even if the Bush Administration were to claim that Maher Arar, as a terrorist suspect, could be treated as an enemy combatant, it would make no difference with regard to his right not to be transferred to a risk of torture and the concomitant U.S. obligation not to transfer him to a risk of torture. The laws of war prohibit torture and ill-treatment in all circumstances, including refoulement to such abuse. Moreover, as noted above, regardless of a persons status under international humanitarian law,he or she remains protected at all times by the international human rights law prohibition on torture and refoulement.
3. Other International Mechanisms
The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture has expressed serious concern about government practices that are increasingly undermining the absolute prohibition on nonrefoulement to torture. In his report to the U.N. General Assembly in September 2004, the outgoing Special Rapporteur, Theo von Boven, highlighted the problem of renditions to torture and called on governments to respect their essential obligation to prevent acts of torture and ill-treatment not only in their own territory, but also by not bringing persons under the control of other States if there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture.66 More recently, the newly-appointed Special Rapporteur, Manfred Nowak, expressed deep concern about attempts to circumvent the absolute nature of the prohibition on torture and ill-treatment in the name of countering terrorism, including, inter alia, returning suspected terrorists to countries which are well-known for their systematic torture practices.67
The most recent resolution of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights on the problem of torture takes a firm stand against transferring persons to places where they are at risk of torture. Unlike previous years, the 2005 resolution addresses the nonrefoulement obligation in an operative paragraph in the text, and makes clear that all forms of transfer to risk of torture are prohibited by international standards. It urges states not to expel, return, extradite or in any other way transfer a person to a place where he or she is at risk of torture.68 The resolution was co-sponsored by numerous governments, including the United States and Canada, and was unanimously adopted by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights on April 19, 2005.
Customary International Law
The prohibition against torture and ill-treatment has risen to the level of jus cogens, that is, a peremptory norm of international law. As such it is considered part of the body of customary international law that binds all states, whether or not they have ratified the treaties in which the prohibition against torture is enshrined. Many governments, human rights experts, and legal scholars have also affirmed that the prohibition against refoulement, derivative of the absolute ban on torture and from which no derogation is permitted, shares its jus cogens character.69 The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture has stated that The principle of nonrefoulement is an inherent part of the overall absolute and imperative nature of the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment.70
The norm against torture, moreover, is undoubtedly one of the basic rights of the human person that partake of an erga omnes character, that is, it is one in which all states have a legal interest in ensuring its protection.71 The erga omnes character of the norm signals that states have a right to pursue remedies for its violation collectively as well as individually. Torture is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, which require states parties to search for persons committing such crimes regardless of their nationality and bring them to justice in their own courts.72 It is a crime of universal jurisdiction, and can also constitute a crime against humanity or a war crime under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.73 Implicit in such a general right of enforcement and remedy on the part of the whole international community is the principle that states also have an obligation not to facilitate violations, either by their own agents or agents of another state. Transferring individuals to states where they are at risk of torture and prohibited ill-treatment, under the rationale of unreliable diplomatic assurances, flies in the face of this principle.
U.S. Domestic Law
In 1998, the U.S. Congress passed legislation that implemented article 3 of the CAT. Section 2242(a) of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (hereinafter FARRA) states that:
It 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, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.74
The policy statement contained in the FARRA largely repeats the obligation under article 3(1) of the CAT, but its language is note worthy. It spells out that the prohibition covers all types of transfers, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States. This language can easily support the conclusion that all types of transfers are thus covered by this provision, including extra-territorial renditions. In addition, the law repeats the substantial grounds standard which appears in the CAT, and foregoes the more likely than not language of the U.S. understanding submitted at the time of its ratification of the convention.
The 1998 law also mandates that all relevant federal agencies promulgate regulations to ensure full and effective implementation of the law.75 Regulations are necessary to translate the policy into action and to give guidance to the officials charged with implementing the policy. Regulations serve two important purposes. First, they spell out the procedures that individuals whose rights are at stake may use to challenge their proposed transfer under the law. Second, they give practical effect to the governments nonrefoulement obligation by providing detailed guidance to U.S. authorities as to the steps they must take in a case where there is a possibility of torture upon transfer to another government. In this way, regulations help to make real the fundamental right against transfer to torture.
Only two federal agencies, however, have complied with this requirement of the law. The former Immigration and Nationalization Service (INS) promulgated detailed implementing regulations pursuant to the FARRA for immigration cases in March 1999, which remain binding on the immigration courts76 as well on the immigration service following its restructuring as part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in March 2003.77 The Department of State issued cursory regulations regarding extraditions also in 1999.78 No other agency has issued regulations. While there has been some suggestion that the CIA may have internal policy guidelines,79 neither the CIA nor the Department of Defense has any formal, publicly available regulations to implement the nonrefoulement requirement of the 1998 legislation. This failing is significant, given the important role of these agencies in the detention and transfer of terrorist suspects to the custody of other governments.
 United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, opened for signature December 10, 1984, G.A. Res. 39/46, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 51, at 197, U.N. Doc. A/RES/39/708 (1984), entered into force June 26, 1987, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, 23 I.L.M. 1027 (1984), as modified, 24 I.L.M. 535, available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm (retrieved April 26, 2005).
 Sen. Exec. Rpt. 101-30, Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification, (1990), [online] http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterIV/treaty14.asp (retrieved May 9, 2005.
 The text of article 3 of the CAT is:
1. No 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.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
 Sen. Exec. Rpt. 101-30, Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification, (1990), at paragraph II.3.
 See Michael John Garcia, The U.N. Convention Against Torture: Overview of U.S. Implementation Policy Concerning the Removal of Aliens, Congressional Research Service, March 11, 2004, [online] http://www.law.duke.edu/curriculum/coursehomepages/Fall2004/351_01/readings/crs.pdf#search='crs%20convention%20torture%20removal' (retrieved May 5, 2005), at page 6.
 See Association of the Bar of the City of New York and Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU School of Law, Torture by Proxy: International and Domestic Law Applicable to Extraordinary Renditions, October 2004, page 37. The commentators point out that according to the Committee Against Torture substantial risk does not require the risk to be highly probable though it should be higher than theory or suspicion, a threshold which is lower than the U.S. more likely than not. See Committee Against Torture, General Comment 1, Communications concerning the return of a person to a State where there may be grounds he would be subjected to torture (article 3 in the context of article 22), U.N. Doc. A/53/44, annex IX at 52 (1998), [online] http://sim.law.uu.nl/SIM/CaseLaw/Gen_Com.nsf/3b4ae2c98fe8b54dc12568870055fbbd/187234925cc264a6c12568870052d8d1?OpenDocument (retrieved May 9, 2005).
 See, for example, Association of the Bar of the City of New York and Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU School of Law, Torture by Proxy: International and Domestic Law Applicable to Extraordinary Renditions, October 2004, footnote 227.
 Second Periodic Report of the United States of America to the Committee Against Torture, May 6, 2005 [online] http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/45738.htm (retrieved May 12, 2003). Under Article 19 of the CAT, states party are required to submit periodic reports to the Committee every four years. The United States had submitted its previous report in 1999.
 Ibid, para 27.
 Ibid, para 37.
 Ibid, Annex I, Part 1, II.E.
 See Joe McDonald, Powell says U.S. won't send home Chinese Muslims held at Guantanamo Bay, Associated Press, August 13, 2004.
 Article 4(1) of the CAT reads as follows: Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
 See, for example, 18 U.S.C. §2. For an analysis of accomplice liability under U.S. domestic law in rendition cases, see Association of the Bar of the City of New York and Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU School of Law, Torture by Proxy: International and Domestic Law Applicable to Extraordinary Renditions, October 2004, pp.103-108.
 See Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the International Law Commission in its 53rd session (2001), A/56/10 (supplement 10), chp.IV.E.1, December 12, 2001, art. 16-17. For an analysis on the derivative responsibility of the United States for the actions of another state and actions of organs of another state under U.S. direction and control in the rendition context, see Association of the Bar of the City of New York and Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU School of Law, Torture by Proxy: International and Domestic Law Applicable to Extraordinary Renditions, October 2004, pp. 98-100.
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. No. 16, at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 Dec. 16, 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 [online] http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm (retrieved May 9, 2005).
 Human Rights Committee, General Comment 20, Article 7, U.N. Doc. A/47/40 (1992), [online] http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6924291970754969c12563ed004c8ae5?Opendocument (retrieved May 9, 2005).
 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, March 26, 2004 (adopted on March 29, 2004) [online] http://sim.law.uu.nl/SIM/CaseLaw/Gen_Com.nsf/a1053168b922584cc12568870055fbbc/7fe15c0f9b9dc489c1256ed800498f39?OpenDocument (retrieved May 9, 2005). ICCPR article 2 reads: Each State party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals with its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 189 U.N.T.S. 150, entered into force April 22, 1954, article 33 [online] http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/refugees.htm (retrieved March 18, 2005); 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees 606 U.N.T.S. 267, entered into force Oct. 4, 1967, [online] http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/protocolrefugees.htm (retrieved March 18, 2005).
 Refugee Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102 (1980).
 A person seeking refugee status can be excluded from such status based on article 1F of the Refugee Convention, which in general terms, precludes refugee status from persons who committed war crimes or serious non-political crimes. As for persons already recognized as refugees, article 33 of the refugee Convention states that nonrefoulement may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country. In addition, article 32, Expulsion, requires due process of law for expulsion decisions, and that the refugee be allowed to submit evidence and be represented unless compelling reasons of national security require otherwise.
 First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 31, entered into force October 21, 1950, art. 50; Second Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, August 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 85, entered into force October 21, 1950, art. 51; Third Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force October 21, 1950, arts. 13, 17, 130; Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, entered into force October 21, 1950, arts. 31, 32, 147; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 1125 U.N.T.S. 3, entered into force December 7, 1978, arts. 11, 85; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 1125 U.N.T.S. 609, entered into force December 7, 1978, art. 4.2. In addition, customary international law, common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, and art. 75 of Protocol I require humane treatment of all detained persons in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
 Third Geneva Convention, art. 12 (Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.); Fourth Geneva Convention, art. 45 (Protected persons may be transferred by the Detaining Power only to a Power which is a party to the present Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the present Convention. If protected persons are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the present Convention rests on the Power accepting them, while they are in its custody . In no circumstances shall a protected person be transferred to a country where he or she may have reason to fear persecution for his or her political opinions or religious beliefs.)
 Press Conference by the President, April 28, 2005 [online] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050428-9.html (retrieved April 29, 2005).
 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture Theo van Boven to the General Assembly, A/59/324, September 1, 2004, para. 27, [online] http://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/498/52/pdf/N0449852.pdf?OpenElement (retrieved May 9, 2005). See generally, ibid, paras. 25-42.
 Statement of the Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, to the 61st Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, Geneva, April 4, 2005 [online] http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/424e6fc8b8e55fa6802566b0004083d9/60b1e9ae29afe9b6c1256fdd0041b400?OpenDocument (retrieved May 9, 2005).
 U.N. Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 2005/39 on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted April 19, 2005, [online] http://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G05/136/95/pdf/G0513695.pdf?OpenElement (retrieved May 9, 2005).
 See Elihu Lauterpacht and Daniel Bethlehem, The Scope and Content of the Principle of Nonrefoulement, June 20, 2001, re-published February 2003 [online] http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/publ/opendoc.pdf?tbl=MEDIA&id=419c75ce4 (retrieved May 2, 2005); Rene Bruin and Kees Wouters, Terrorism and the Non-Derogability of Nonrefoulement, International Journal of Refugee Law, Volume 15 No. 5 (2003), section 4.6 [The jus cogens nature of nonrefoulement]; Jean Allain, The Jus Cogens Nature of Nonrefoulement, International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 13 (2001), p. 538; David Weissbrodt and Isabel Hörtreitere, The Principle of Nonrefoulement: Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Comparison with the Nonrefoulement Provisions of Other International Human Rights Treaties, Buffalo Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 5 (1999).
 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture Theo van Boven to the General Assembly, A/59/324, September 1, 2004, para. 28.
 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 32, para. 33. Although the Barcelona Traction case did not specifically enumerate torture, it is widely accepted that the prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is a norm of such fundamental importance and universal acceptance that it falls into this class of obligations, and moreover, is a crime of universal jurisdiction. See, for example, Restatement of the Law (Third): The Foreign Relations Law of the United States (The American Law Institute: Washington, D.C.) 1986 at § 702 Comment (o) and M. Cherif Bassiouni, "International Crimes: Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes," Law & Contemp. Prob., 25 (1996), pp. 63, 68.
 See, e.g. arts. 146 and 147 to the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949.
 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998, U.N. Doc. 2187 U.N.T.S. 90, entered into force July 1, 2002, arts. 7(1)(f); 8(2)(ii); 8(2)(c)(i-ii); see also the International Law Commissions Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind, at articles 8 and 9, 1996 [online] http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/dccomfra.htm (retrieved March 31, 2005). This foundational document for the Rome Statute laid out torture as a crime of universal jurisdiction to which every state is obliged to extend its criminal jurisdiction regardless of where or by whom the crime was committed.
 Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (8 U.S.C. 1231 note), § 2242(a).
 FARRA, § 2242(b).
 8 CFR 1208.16-1208.18.
 8 CFR 208.16-208.18.
 22 CFR 95.1-95.4.
 See Michael John Garcia, Renditions: Constraints Imposed by Laws on Torture, Congressional Research Service, April 28, 2005 , page 8, [online] http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32890.pdf#search='congressional%20research%20service%20RL32890' (retrieved May 9, 2005) (CIA regulations concerning renditions are not publicly available.)