CAT/C/39/2 page 57 of Genocide, in which the ICJ recognized that article I forbids States from committing themselves the crime of genocide, thus not only preventing and punishing its perpetration by individuals.47 241. In view of the considerations above, the Brazilian State asserts the inexistence of any deliberate plan or policy for the occurrence of the practice of torture in the country. On the contrary, as the Committee against Torture itself recognized, it stresses that the governmental authorities are aware of the seriousness of the problem and have the political will to improve. It thus disagrees with the opinion that torture is systematically practiced in Brazil, having in mind the meaning ordinarily given to the expression. VI. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT 242. The Brazilian Government takes note of the comments by the Committee on situations of endemic overcrowding, filthy conditions of confinement, extreme heat, light deprivation and permanent lock-ups in places of detention in Brazil and their relationship with the conclusions arrived at by CAT under article 20. It points out, however, that sufficient consideration does not appear to have been given to the distinction between the practice of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, on the one hand, and lack of respect toward the human treatment of persons deprived of freedom. 243. In its article 1, the Convention Against Torture defines torture as “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 (emphases added). 244. The Convention Against Torture, however, did not define what would be “other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”, mentioned in its article 16 (“Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”) (emphasis added). 47 Cf. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE. LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States of America). Judgement, 27 June 2001. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007.