A/HRC/58/49 IV. Thematic intersectional issues of freedom of religion or belief and the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment 38. The intersection of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment and freedom of religion or belief gives rise to several recurring thematic issues. Submissions and inputs from States, national human rights institutions, national preventive mechanisms, civil society organizations, religious or belief groups, academics and experts, providing examples of how these rights overlap in practice, have been analysed and systematized below, together with relevant jurisprudence, allegation letters and reports of special procedures. 39. The intersection of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment and freedom of religion or belief can be categorized into two main areas: (a) those instances affecting people outside “places of deprivation of liberty”; and (b) those affecting individuals inside such institutional settings. “Places of deprivation of liberty” is interpreted broadly to include both public and private settings, as the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture prescribes in its general comment No. 1 (2024).55 40. These broad categories are subdivided further, illustrating recurrent practices that lead to violations of the above-mentioned rights. The present report seeks to shed light on gaps in protection where further jurisprudential and theoretical development on the intersection of both rights is needed. A. General remarks 41. The intersection of freedom of religion or belief and the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment is evident in the concept of coercion in article 18 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – which strictly prohibits coercion aimed at changing an individual’s religion or belief56 – and in the definition of torture in the Convention against Torture. 57 Both prohibitions are absolute, 58 as they do not permit any limitations. Consequently, torture and ill-treatment inflicted to coerce individuals to abandon their beliefs violate not just one but two absolute rights. 42. Coercion can be manifested physically or psychologically/mentally. These two aspects are naturally interlinked. Physical coercion will have physical and psychological effects on individuals, and vice versa. 59 That said, it is easier to demonstrate evidence of physical coercion than psychological coercion, and the latter has oftentimes been overlooked. 43. It is important to note that both rights protect a person’s inner realm “where mental faculties are developed, exercised and defined”.60 Often, torture and ill-treatment are inflicted by targeting the individual’s inner realm, bringing about physical pain or subjecting the person to acts that induce mental suffering. The body becomes the gateway to the mind, where the torture may be aimed at altering internal beliefs. Acknowledging violations of both rights in these contexts shifts the focus towards protecting the shared non-derogable forum internum of both rights, and provides victims with more appropriate remedies for the life-long impacts of their ill-treatment.61 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 GE.24-24412 Para. 3. American Convention on Human Rights, art. 12 (2), has a similar prohibition. Convention against Torture, art. 1. The travaux préparatoires demonstrate that coercion and discrimination were added to the definition of torture after several debates, in J. Herman Burgers and Hans Danelius, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Handbook on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Dordrecht, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Martinus Nijhoff, 2021), p. 46. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 3; and general comment No. 22 (1993), para. 8. Istanbul Protocol, as revised, para. 372. A/76/380, para. 2. Input by Bethany Shiner. See also Pau Pérez-Sales, Psychological Torture: Definition, Evaluation and Measurement (New York, Routledge, 2017). 9