What is Article 3 and why does it matter today?

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibits torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, or punishment, with no exceptions. In 2025, the UK Government announced plans to pursue reform of the scope of Article 3. Any watering down of Article 3 protections risks eroding the absolute nature of the torture ban. 

The absolute prohibition on torture

The absolute prohibition on torture is a fundamental cornerstone of international law that recognises the need to ban, without exception, the most egregious assault on human dignity. This principle is enshrined in numerous international treaties, customary international law, and is accepted as a jus cogens norm that cannot be violated by any state. 

Freedom from Torture has been supporting survivors of torture to heal and rebuild their lives for decades. We have developed a deep understanding of the conditions which lead to torture. We know that most perpetrators feel they have good cause. 

The absolute ban on torture, reinforced by Article 3, precludes any attempts at accepting, defending, justifying or tolerating the most grievous violations of human rights. This must be preserved. 

What is Article 3?

Article 3 of the ECHR prohibits torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It is an “absolute” right, meaning there are no exceptions in which torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment could be permitted. 

Article 3 prohibits the UK from removing, deporting or extraditing people to another country where there are substantial grounds to believe that they would face a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Rights and freedoms set out in the ECHR, including under Article 3, are incorporated into UK law through the Human Rights Act. 

What is at stake for Article 3?

The UK has been a trailblazer in the evolution of an absolute ban on torture over hundreds of years. As such, the international community looks to the UK as a standard setter in upholding the ban. Polling shows that an overwhelming majority of the British public believe that torture can never be justified in any circumstances.

In 2025 the UK Government announced plans to work with international partners to pursue reform of the prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment enshrined in Article 3 of the ECHR in order to “retain public confidence”.  In December, the UK was one of 27 of 46 CoE States, which signed a statement calling for the scope of inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 to be limited to the “most serious issues”, so as to allow for expulsion of foreign criminals or removal in cases of extradition. 

In early 2026, UK officials began negotiating with Council of Europe (CoE) partners on language for a declaration on migration to be adopted at the 135th Session of the Committee of Ministers in May in Chișinău.  

The forthcoming declaration could pave the way for a watering down of Article 3 protections. Preserving the absolute nature of the protection against torture, inhuman and degrading treatment goes to the heart of the endurance of the ECHR. The European Court of Human Rights has emphasised that respect for human dignity is the “essence” of the ECHR. 

Any efforts to limit Article 3 protections for certain groups risks undermining this principle, and in so doing contributing to the erosion of the absolute nature of the torture ban as well as the founding principles of the Convention itself. This must be avoided and the principle of non-refoulement – that no one, under any circumstances, is ever returned to a country where they face a real risk of torture must be upheld. 

The Government’s intention to review Article 3 protections follows a proposal by Reform UK leader, Nigel Farage, that if elected to office, he would be willing to work with the Taliban to deport people to Afghanistan. This would risk sending survivors back into the hands of their torturers. It is inconceivable that a British politician could tout such a proposal, which is a direct threat to the UK’s status as a democratic society governed by the rule of law. 

The Government’s response should go beyond a mere critique of its seriousness or workability, and provide a wholesale rejection of it, including on the most fundamental moral grounds. Every safeguard dismantled today will be a gift to those who seek to abuse power tomorrow. 

How weakening Article 3 could trigger a worldwide domino effect

Even seemingly small steps towards weakening Article 3 protections risks triggering a domino effect around the world. Any perception that the UK and European partners are willing to roll back purportedly sacrosanct protections when it is deemed politically expedient to do so risks emboldening repressive states across the globe to follow suit in “legitimising” breaches of the torture ban. 

This would be a betrayal of torture survivors across the world and open the door to the unravelling of our shared right to live a life free from torture. 

The global context for threats to Article 3

The torture ban is facing grave threats. Around the world authoritarianism is on the rise while leadership against torture has weakened. In 2025, for the first time ever, the US voted against the UN General Assembly’s periodic resolution condemning torture. 

Respect for the rule of law is declining and double standards in upholding human rights have been brought into sharp focus very recently. Economic insecurity and the spread of disinformation is driving division and populism. The perpetrators of torture often appear to act with impunity, and in some cases they even appear to act with pride. 

It is more important than ever that the UK stands firm in its unwavering commitment to the torture ban, without exception. Any attempts at undermining these universal protections threatens the security of each and every one of us. 

The history of Article 3 and the torture ban

The UK’s history in the creation of the torture ban means that it wields enormous global influence in assuring its endurance. For centuries the UK led the way in the evolution of an absolute ban on torture. The Crown practice of issuing torture warrants ended in 1640. It was not until the 18th and 19th centuries that Continental Europe followed suit. 

Eventually the British stance prevailed in international law. The UK played a central role in the drafting the ECHR and the UN Convention Against Torture. This history affords the UK enormous influence over the endurance of the torture ban. This government must hold the line. 

As a major military player on the global stage and permanent member of the UN Security Council, the UK plays a defining role in the continued promotion of the international rules-based system that it helped to build. Any actions which weaken the protections afforded by Article 3 are a betrayal of the UK’s historic leadership in the fight against torture and ill treatment. 

At a time when there are more conflicts taking place around the world than at any time since World War II, it has never been so important that the UK leads by example in defending the global torture ban. 

In response to today’s news on the potential changing of the interpretation of Article 3  Kolbassia Haoussou, Director of Survivor Leadership and Influencing at Freedom from Torture, said:

“As a survivor of torture, I know exactly what it means when governments start treating human rights as optional. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights is not a technicality – it is an absolute guarantee that no one should ever be sent back to face torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.  

“The UK has long prided itself on fairness, compassion and upholding the rule of law. Chipping away at Article 3 would not just undermine that reputation but send a dangerous message to repressive regimes around the world that even the most fundamental protections can be bargained away. Every safeguard dismantled today will be a gift to those who seek to abuse power tomorrow.

“Torture is one of the most appalling violations of human dignity. And the prohibition against it must remain absolute. History has taught us what happens when some people are denied their rights. And our politicians today face a simple choice: defend these protections or erode them. Human rights only work if they apply to everyone – either we all have them, or none of us do.”

Image credit: Adrian Grycuk, CC BY-SA 3.0 PL, via Wikimedia Commons