A/HRC/13/36 (2) of the Covenant lists various rights which are non-derogable at all times, such as: the right to life; the prohibition of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment; the prohibition of retroactive criminal laws; freedom of thought, conscience and religion;8 and the prohibition of the death penalty (article 6 of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). 24. Under article 2 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, State parties are obliged to respect and ensure the Covenant rights to all persons who may be within their territory and to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. General comment No. 15 of the Human Rights Committee indicates that this obligation is not limited to a State’s citizens, but must be guaranteed to all individuals, regardless of nationality or statelessness, such as asylum-seekers, refugees, migrant workers and others who may find themselves subject to the jurisdictional regulations of the territory in which they are found. 25. Procedurally, States commit themselves to establishing suitable institutions (i.e. primarily judicial institutions, such as criminal, civil, constitutional and special human rights courts, or also national human rights institutions and torture rehabilitation bodies) to enable victims of torture to obtain redress.9 National mechanisms are required to give prompt, thorough, and effective attention to the obligations to investigate allegations of violations10 through independent11 and impartial bodies. National human rights institutions, endowed with appropriate powers, can contribute to this end by referring all those responsible for committing gross human rights violations to the criminal justice system for investigation. 26. The Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment indicated that in the light of the consistent international jurisprudence suggesting that the prohibition of amnesties leading to impunity for serious human rights has become a rule of customary international law, he expresses his opposition to the passing, application and non-revocation of amnesty laws which prevent torturers from being brought to justice and hence contribute to a culture of impunity. He called on States to refrain from granting or acquiescing in impunity at the national level, inter alia, by the 8 9 10 11 10 for persons taking no active part in hostilities entails, among other things: the prohibition, at any time and in any place, of violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture, the taking of hostages, and outrage upon personal dignity. See also general comment No. 29, paras. 9 and 14 of the Human Rights Committee. Articles 6, 7, 15 and 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. See also Manfred Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary, second revised edition (Kehl am Rhein, Engle, 2005), p. 94. See A/HRC/4/33, para. 63; Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, communication No. 10/1997, Habassi v. Denmark, 6 April 1999, paras. 9.3–10; Committee against Torture: conclusions and recommendations on Colombia, 4 February 2004, para. 9 (a); see also conclusions and recommendations on Yemen, 5 February 2004, para. 6 (e); conclusions and recommendations on Morocco, 5 February 2004, para. 7 (c). See note 7 supra at paras. 15 and 18 of Human Rights Committee general comment No. 31. See also Helen Mack Chang et al. Case, Order of the Court of 6 June 2003, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. E) (6 June 2003). Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, para. 210. The case can be found at www1.umn.edu/ humanrts/iachr/E/chang6-6-03.html. See Committee against Torture, communication No. 257/2004, Keremedchiev v. Bulgaria, 28 September 2004; communication No. 1327/2004, Grioua v. Algeria, 10 July 2007, para. 7.10. See also European Court of Human Rights, Barbu Anghelescu v. Romania, 12 October 2004, on the requirement of independence, which entails not only the absence of all hierarchical or institutional links, but also practical independence. The court found that an inquiry carried out by military prosecutors did not satisfy this criterion. GE.10-10442