How did you come to study the crime of torture?

The initial topic of my PhD thesis was not specifically focused on the discrete crime of torture. Rather, torture was expected to play only a minor role within a broader study of international crimes. However, since the discrete crime of torture had already been the subject of my master’s thesis, I continued researching it with the intention of publishing part of that work. Over time, it made sense to build on my master’s thesis and develop it further into a PhD project. Eventually, my supervisor, Professor Paola Gaeta, and I concluded that it would be best to make torture the central topic of the PhD thesis as well.

Can you describe your thesis questions? 

To explain the research questions, I must briefly outline the context. The crime of torture is defined in Article 1 of the UN Convention against Torture. One key element of this definition is the requirement that the act be committed by a “public official or other person acting in an official capacity” for it to qualify as torture under the Convention. Starting from this point, I noticed that while other elements of the definition had been extensively studied, analysed, and debated by scholars, courts, and expert bodies, the involvement of a “public official or other person acting in an official capacity” had not received the same level of attention. Based on this gap in the literature, I formulated the following research questions:

• What is the proper interpretation of “public official” for the purposes of Article 1 of the UN Convention against Torture?
• What is the correct interpretation of “other person acting in an official capacity” for the purposes of Article 1 of the UN Convention against Torture?
• How far can one go in the privatisation of torture?

A brief explanation is necessary for this last question. Depending on how we interpret the terms “public official” and “other person acting in an official capacity”, certain scenarios may or may not fall under the definition of torture as set out in the UN Convention against Torture. For example, acts of private violence with no involvement of individuals categorised as “public official or other person acting in an official capacity” may fall outside the Convention’s scope. Thus, this research aims to explore the limits of privatising torture under international law, by developing suitable interpretations of these key terms.

What methodology did you use to explore those questions? 

The research is based entirely on desk research. The whole thesis is an exercise of treaty interpretation. In doing so, various elements are discussed to help define the terms “public official” and “other person acting in an official capacity”, such as domestic jurisprudence and state practice. The thesis also considers how similar treaties define specific categories of perpetrators such as “public official”. Finally, the study proposes interpretations of these terms, based primarily on a theoretical legal analysis using different rules of international law, such as the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility. In order to provide some context and background, the thesis also examines the drafting history of the UN Convention against Torture and expert pronouncement on the matter. 

What are your major findings? 

The main findings of the thesis are two proposed interpretations, respectively, for the notion of “public official” and “other person acting in an official capacity”. For the former, this thesis argues that anyone who forms part of organs of the state — being this de jure or de facto — or anyone who has been lawfully delegated to exercise elements of governmental authority should be defined as a “public official”. For the latter instead, this thesis argues that “other person acting in an official capacity” should be interpreted as to include anyone who acts under the direction or control of the state, anyone who acts with the endorsement of the state, or anyone who acts in the absence or default of official authorities. Moreover, the expression “other person acting in an official capacity” should also include all the members of those non-state groups that are able to exercise public functions or provide public goods that are typically the responsibility of the state, irrespective of their degree of territorial control.

What could be the social and political implications of your thesis?

The most important implication of the thesis is that, by clarifying who qualifies as a “public official” or “other person acting in an official capacity”, we can better understand the range of situations to which the definition of the discrete crime of torture under the UN Convention against Torture applies. For example, from a human rights perspective, UN Special Rapporteurs, NGOs, legal experts, and academics have advocated for applying the torture framework to violence occurring in schools, elder care institutions, and even domestic settings. It is only by carefully analysing the meaning of these two key expressions that we can determine whether the criminal legal framework of the discrete crime of torture applies to such scenarios.

In essence, understanding who can be considered a “public official” or “other person acting in an official capacity” enables us to grasp how far torture can be privatised and whether the UN Convention against Torture can be applied to situations involving private individuals with some form of official involvement. Importantly, if the UN Convention against Torture applies, this would trigger state obligations for all the state parties to the Convention towards the alleged torturer  such as the duties to arrest and prosecute.

What are you going to do in life after the PhD? 

At the moment, I remain open to several career paths. Part of me would like to build on the research and expertise I’ve developed over the past few years by continuing to work on the legal framework of torture at the international level. Another option I find appealing is working in the coordination of academic programmes at the university level. I’m interested in becoming more involved in the day-to-day management and organisation of university programmes and supporting academic operations from an administrative/managerial perspective. At this stage, my next steps are still very much a work in progress — so, let’s see where the journey takes me!

*     *     *

Victoria Priori (second from the left) defended her PhD thesis in International Law, titled “The Crime of Torture: The Involvement of a Public Official or Other Person Acting in an Official Capacity”, on 27 June 2025. Professor Andrew Clapham (second from the right) presided over the committee, which included Professor Paola Gaeta, thesis supervisor, and Professor Kevin Jon Heller, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, as external reader.

Citation of the PhD thesis: 
Priori, Victoria. “The Crime of Torture: The Involvement of a Public Official or Other Person Acting in an Official Capacity.” PhD thesis, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, 2025.
Access: 
Members of the Geneva Graduate Institute can access the thesis via this page of the Institute’s repository. Others can contact Dr Priori. 

Banner image by Aleksey Timoshin/Shutterstock.
Interview by Nathalie Tanner, Research Office.