随着人权观念的普及，酷刑作为践踏人权和藐视法律的恶行，在全球范围内被打击和禁止。目前，在国际刑事司法合作联系日趋紧密的背景下，引渡和遣返案件中适用反酷刑承诺的情况越来越常见，但不论是国际法领域，还是国内法领域，都没有明确的制度规范反酷刑承诺的使用，导致犯罪嫌疑人常利用制度漏洞，拖延案件审理进程，阻碍引渡或遣返合作。因此，研究反酷刑承诺的内容和程序问题，对于促进我国引渡与遣返合作、打击违法犯罪具有重要意义。

本文的研究内容主要分为四个部分：

第一部分，反酷刑承诺的概述。我国现行立法当中并没有对于反酷刑承诺概念的规定，学界对此也尚未提出明确界定，由于明确反酷刑承诺的概念是其制度研究基础，为巩固文章论证根基，故在内涵与外延辨析的基础上，通过分析禁止酷刑委员和欧洲人权法院的对立观点，探究反酷刑承诺制度的必要性，确认反酷刑承诺具有重要的研究价值。

第二部分，我国反酷刑承诺实践现状与问题简述。目前我国涉及反酷刑承诺的案件，依据案件性质可以分为反腐败追逃追赃案件和其他刑事追逃案件：前者主要因犯罪嫌疑人的政治身份、职务犯罪罪名而存在酷刑风险，后者的酷刑风险则来自于案件所涉罪行的恶劣程度和损害利益的严重程度。尽管通过反酷刑承诺的适用在上述两类案件的实践中取得了许多成功经验，但我国反酷刑承诺仍然面临着具体内容上和程序上的一些问题和挑战。

第三部分，反酷刑承诺具体内容的反思与完善。如何保证承诺所涉内容的全面有效，是反酷刑承诺适用中的一大问题，关系着外方对我国承诺的认可和接受。这一问题存在的具体困境有：一是外国对我国法律制度缺乏了解和信任，认为我国刑讯逼供现象常发；二是外国对于我国能否为当事人提供适时适当的医疗服务存疑；三是外国认为我国审前羁押规定不明，存在非法限制当事人人身自由的可能；四是外国对于保障被请求人审判后监狱处遇的承诺内容越来越重视。经分析与思考，文章对上述问题提出起草并发送国内法律情况说明、协商所涉具体内容、完善国内相关机制构建等可供参考的改进建议。

第四部分，反酷刑承诺程序问题的反思与完善。制约反酷刑承诺适用的另一大问题就是程序规则缺位，目前我国反酷刑承诺的主要程序问题有：决定主体不明、审查发出机关缺位以及返还监督机制的信任度低。结合我国法律规定和实务情况，针对上述三个问题，文章提出以公安部和司法部为承诺决定主体、明确外交部为审查和发出机关、完善返还后的核查监督机制等建议，以期为未来反酷刑承诺适用程序的完善提供参考。

With the popularization of the concept of human rights, torture, as a villainy of trampling on human rights and flouting the law, has been combated and prohibited worldwide. Currently, in the context of increasingly close international criminal judicial cooperation, it is more common to apply diplomatic assurance against torture in extradition and repatriation cases. However, there is no explicit system to regulate the use of diplomatic assurance against torture in either the international law field or the domestic law field. This leads to the frequent use of system loopholes by criminal suspects, which delays the process of the case and hinders cooperation in extradition or repatriation. Therefore, studying the content and procedures of diplomatic assurance against torture is of great significance for promoting cooperation on extradition and repatriation in China and combating crimes.

The research content of this paper is mainly divided into four parts:

The first part is an overview of diplomatic assurance against torture. There is no provision on the concept of diplomatic assurance against torture in our current legislation, and the academic fields have not yet put forward a clear definition of it. Since the concept of diplomatic assurance against torture is the foundation of institutional research, to consolidate the argumentation foundation of the article, this paper explores the necessity of diplomatic assurance against torture by analyzing the opposing views of the Committee Against Torture and the European Court of Human Rights based on the connotation and extension analysis, confirming that the diplomatic assurance against torture has important research value.

The second part is a brief description of the current situation and problems in the practice of diplomatic assurance against torture in China. At present, the cases involving diplomatic assurance against torture in our country can be categorized into anti-corruption cases and other criminal cases according to the nature of the cases. The former mainly involves the risk of torture due to the political identity of the suspect and the duty-related crime, while the latter has the risk of torture due to the severity of the crime involved in the case and the damage to interests. Although the application of diplomatic assurance against torture has achieved a lot of successful experiences in the practice of the above two types of cases, the use of diplomatic assurance against torture in China still faces some problems and challenges in terms of specific content and procedures. 

The third part is the reflection and improvement of the concrete content of diplomatic assurance against torture. How to ensure the comprehensive and effective content of assurance is a major issue in the application of diplomatic assurance against torture, which is related to the recognition and acceptance of our assurance by foreign countries. The specific dilemmas of this issue include: First, foreign countries lack understanding and trust in China's legal system, believing that torture is a frequent phenomenon in China; Second, foreign countries doubt whether China can provide timely and appropriate medical services for the criminal suspects; The third is that foreign countries believe that the provisions of pretrial detention in our country are unclear and there is a possibility of illegal limitation of the criminal suspects' freedom; Fourth, foreign countries are paying more and more attention to the content of the assurance to guarantee the treatment of the criminal suspects in prison after trial. After analysis and reflection on these dilemmas, this paper proposes ways to improve the above issues, such as drafting and sending a description of the domestic legal situation to foreign countries, negotiating the specific content of the assurance, and improving the construction of relevant domestic mechanisms.

The fourth part is the reflection and improvement of the diplomatic assurance against torture procedure. Another major problem that restricts the application of diplomatic assurance against torture is the absence of procedural rules. Currently, the main procedural problems of diplomatic assurance against torture in our country include: the unclear decision subject, absence of the reviewing and issuing authority, and low trust in the supervision mechanism. To provide reference for the improvement of the application procedure of the diplomatic assurance against torture in the future, this paper puts forward some suggestions based on the legal provisions and practical situation in China. These suggestions are in response to the above-mentioned three issues: taking the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of Justice as the main deciding body of assurances, confirming the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the reviewing and issuing authority, and improving the verification and supervision mechanism.