83. First, article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties sets out the general rule of interpretation of treaties: “A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.” Applying that general rule to article 1 of the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT), the ordinary meaning of the phrase “a public official or other person acting in an official capacity” does not in my opinion extend to a member of an insurgent group engaged in armed insurrection against the government of the country. That point does not admit of much elaboration. The ordinary meaning of the words “a public official” is reasonably clear, and would not in my opinion apply to such a person. The words “or other person acting in an official capacity” would, in their ordinary meaning, extend to persons who were not public officials but who were acting in a similar capacity, by reason for example of the outsourcing of public functions to private agencies. The core idea seems to me to be that the person in question is acting on behalf of the state. I have difficulty in applying the words “acting in an official capacity” to persons participating in an armed insurrection against the government. 84. Secondly, article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention requires the terms used in a treaty to be given their ordinary meaning “in their context”. The context, so far as UNCAT concerns the position of the state where the torture occurs, includes in the first place the final sentence in article 1, which excludes from the definition of torture “pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions”. The reference to “lawful sanctions” supports the view that article 1 is concerned with conduct for which the state bears responsibility. It is far from obvious how the exclusion of lawful sanctions is to be applied if the conduct of insurgents controlling an area of territory falls within the scope of article 1. Are they to be regarded as being in a position to impose lawful sanctions, despite their lack of any lawful authority for their conduct? If so, by what standards is the lawfulness of any sanctions they might impose to be judged? But if not, can no distinction be drawn between punishment which falls within the scope of UNCAT and punishment which does not? 85. The context also includes article 2(1): “Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.” Page 41