In this context it appears they are using them to show they are quoting the use of the word and not editorializing by calling it what it is.

If they were unable to independently verify actual torture took place, proper journalism would not allow that to be reported as a fact (without quotes), instead they must rely on the report of a third party who alleges that “torture” took place, by quoting said third party. It is your job as the reader to decide if the third party is a trustworthy source for this information, not the journalist’s. This is how proper journalism works. It is not intended to imply negative judgement of the use of the term “torture”. It is intended to distinguish solely between what the journalist was able to establish as fact, versus what was reported by a potentially biased or potentially unreliable third party and let you know which part is the part you are responsible for evaluating critically. For people with critical thinking skills and knowledge of the journalistic process, this is valuable and important information to distinguish at a glance, sadly many people have spent their entire lives being pummeled with the relentless firehoses of sensationalist news media and social media which explicitly tell you what to think in the most biased ways possible and have nothing to do with journalism, so people no longer have the necessary experience and skills to understand how journalism is supposed to work.

In journalism, as opposed to internet forums, quotes are used to convey something someone else has literally said instead of representing something in a mocking tone. Someone called it torture (potentially an expert in calling things torture) so they used quotes to say “we’re not calling this torture, someone more educated in this topic called it torture and we are leaning on their expertise to know what they’re talking about”