person acting in an official capacity’. The Convention was again following the Declaration of 1975, but developing it by adding the phrases ‘or with the consent or acquiescence of’ and ‘or other person acting in an official capacity’. Consequently, State responsibility is apparent even when the authorities resort to the use of private gangs or paramilitary groups in order to inflict ‘severe pain or suffering’ with the intention and purposes already mentioned. However, private acts of brutality - even the possible sadistic tendencies of particular security officials should not imply State responsibility, since these would usually be ordinary criminal offences under national law.” (at para 38) In this passage Mr Kooijmans is focussing on the circumstances in which a State may be responsible for acts of torture. He emphasises the distinction between official and private acts and the extension of the State’s responsibility in cases of consent or acquiescence within article 1. Contrary to the appellant’s submission, this passage does not support the proposition that a “state-nexus requirement” is inherent in the term “official capacity”, such that the term only applies to persons acting on behalf of the State. The relevance of state responsibility to the present issue is considered below. Committee Against Torture 40. Part II of UNCAT establishes the CAT which consists of “ten experts of high moral standing and recognized competence in the field of human rights, who shall serve in their personal capacity” (article 17(1)). The States Parties are required to submit to the CAT reports on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under UNCAT and the CAT may make general comments on the reports (article 19). In addition, a State Party may declare that it recognises the competence of the CAT to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. The CAT is required to consider such communications and to forward its views to the State Party and the individual concerned (article 22). 41. The decisions and General Comments of the CAT are clearly entitled to respect. However, in considering the work of the CAT as part of subsequent practice in the application of UNCAT it is necessary to bear in mind the particular status of the Committee. In Jones v Saudi Arabia Lord Bingham observed, at para 23, with regard to a General Comment made by the CAT on the issue of effective measures of redress: Page 20