Emma Chandler, University of Bristol
The European Union has legal frameworks designed to prevent human rights abuses through regulating trade, a significant policy achievement. The effectiveness of these regulations depends on transparency and accountability from Member States; yet inadequate public reporting undermines the EU’s capacity to be a united collective against the trade in equipment that could facilitate human rights abuses, including torture.
In 2005, the EU took a significant step in aligning its trade policies with its human rights values through the EU Anti-Torture Regulation (Regulation 1236/2005), the first multilateral legally binding framework to prohibit and regulate trade in goods that could be used for torture or other ill-treatment or the death penalty. The Regulation categorises equipment into three annexes and sets clear guidelines and rules for how Member States should regulate trade with third countries of equipment that is used for torture, other ill-treatment, or the death penalty. The Regulation was reviewed and strengthened in 2019 (Regulation 2019/125), with expanded controls on exports, transit, and promotion of such goods. Most recently, in 2025, the EU has further strengthened the Regulation, adding crucial new items including hoods, blindfolds, leg irons, gang chains, and drone-delivered chemical irritant systems to the prohibited list, while expanding controls on additional law enforcement equipment.
Under the EU Anti-Torture Regulation, EU Member States are required to publish annual public activity reports of their implementation of the Regulation. This transparency is meant to show whether Member States are acting in line with the Regulation. It could enable civil society to monitor compliance, pressure States to uphold their human rights commitments, and prevent complicity in abuses through trade.
As part of a recent research project as a University of Bristol intern with Omega Research Foundation, I tried to trace the implementation of the EU Anti-Torture Regulation across several Member States by looking for their activity reports. It became evident that public access to these reports is inconsistent. For many of the States I researched, no implementation reports were available. Many States report internally to the European Commission but fail to provide adequate access to the public with reports either unpublished or inaccessible in either format or location. This lack of accessible public reporting weakens the Regulation’s effectiveness. Civil society actors, journalists, and researchers are unable to access the information necessary to evaluate national compliance or scrutinise potentially problematic exports. This undermines the Regulation’s core purpose and limits the capacity for external accountability.
With this latest strengthening of the Regulation’s scope, the need for transparent implementation becomes even more critical. As the EU expands its controls to address new forms of equipment misuse, Member States must ensure their reporting keeps pace with these developments. The EU must demand what it already mandates: clear, publicly accessible, and consistent reporting from every Member State.