From that link -
" 1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any
act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is
intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or
a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a
third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or
intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on
discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at
the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or
other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or
suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
So they would define threats of torture or execution as torture (as such threats, at least if seen as credible, would cause mental or emotion suffering), but wouldn't count anything as torture if its not inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or the consent or acquiescence of someone acting in some official capacity.
That seems like a rather odd definition to me.
According to that definition, if some "non-official" psycho on his own initiative, kidnaps me, yanks my fingernails out, beats me up, burns me, and stretches me out on a rack, I haven't been tortured. But if someone with a official position or capacity screams at the psycho, and keeps him awake and uncomfortable, in order to try to find out where he is holding me, then it would be torture. |
