The international human rights regime is characterized by extensive jurisdictional overlap between global and regional institutions that address and monitor the same or closely related human rights through partly complementary, partly similar procedures. Taking Europe as an example, individuals alleging violations of the core physical integrity right to freedom from torture can lodge complaints – depending on case specifics and the State involved – with up to five different institutions. While the complaints procedures are similar in many respects, they also differ in important ones, notably the legally binding/non-binding status of their decisions and the mechanisms for supervising second-order compliance with them. The descriptive statistical data on compliance with torture-related decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee against Torture against European States shows that the court and committees induce compliance with their decisions similarly well with respect to findings of conditional non-refoulement violations against liberal democracies, but that the court performs better with respect to remedying actual violations.