ABSTRACTTreaty ratification and human rights criticism, along with democratic change, are key underpinnings of international human rights in practice. Using a treaty-specific human rights indicator in a dynamic panel data framework, I estimate how states' human rights behavior changes in response to ratification of the Convention against Torture (CAT) and criticism launched through United Nations (UN) procedures from 1985 to 2005, and whether response differs by a government's democratic status. Prior CAT ratifiers generally respond more positively to country-specific UN human rights criticism than do nonratifiers. When criticized, the difference between ratifiers and nonratifiers is greater with higher democratic governance ratings, however, ratification combined with criticism is likely to stabilize or improve human rights levels even in countries scoring poorly on democratic indicators.