52. The basis on which the CAT sought to distinguish Elmi in HMHI is, with respect, unconvincing. If acts by rebel groups exercising de facto authority are capable of falling within the definition of torture in article 1 at all, then that should be the case regardless of whether there exists a central government. Furthermore, the suggestion on behalf of the appellant that once there was a central government, notwithstanding doubts as to the reach of its territorial authority and permanence, the risk of torture fell outside the scope of the Convention, cannot be accepted. The decision in Elmi did not turn on the notion that refoulement would violate the Convention because there was no effective government in Somalia to protect individuals from non-State actors. Rather, the decision in Elmi made clear that the Hawiye were a quasi-governmental institution performing functions comparable to those normally performed by legitimate governments and that it was that de facto status which brought its conduct within the scope of article 1. By contrast with HMHI, the ruling on this point in SS makes eminent sense. It reaffirms that acts of a de facto authority are capable of falling within the definition in article 1 and it does so in terms which free it from the unprincipled restriction apparently imposed in HMHI. Despite its manifest inconsistencies, therefore, this line of authority does provide some support for the view that the conduct of non-State actors exercising de facto authority over territory which they occupy can fall within article 1 of UNCAT. Context of international law 53. Article 31(2)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that in interpreting a treaty there shall be taken into account, together with the context, any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties. In this regard it is necessary to refer to the possible relevance of two matters: State responsibility and recognition of States and governments. Relevance of State responsibility 54. Before the Court of Appeal the prosecution sought to rely on principles concerning the responsibility of an insurrectional movement which ultimately succeeds in replacing the government of a State, as the NPFL did in Liberia. The General Commentary to the International Law Commission Draft Articles on State Responsibility explains that whereas the conduct of an unsuccessful insurrectional movement is not in general attributable to the State, where the movement achieves its aims and installs itself as the new government of the State it would be anomalous if the new regime could avoid responsibility for conduct earlier committed by it. The continuity which exists between the new organisation of the State and that of the insurrectional movement leads to the attribution to the State of conduct which the insurrectional movement may have committed during the struggle. As a result, article 10 of the Draft Articles provides for the attribution of the conduct of the successful insurrectional movement to the State (J Crawford, The International Law Page 26