based violence, such as rape, domestic violence, female genital mutilation, and trafficking.” In this regard the prosecution further relies on passages in the CAT’s initial report on Iraq, 7 September 2015 (CAT/C/IRQ/CO/1, paras 11-12) and its second periodic report on Afghanistan, 12 July 2017 (CAT/C/AFG/2, para 7). On this basis it submits that it is envisaged that it is not only State agents who should be prosecuted and punished pursuant to the State parties’ obligations under the Convention but also perpetrators from non-State party groups or organisations operating on the territory of the State party. 46. This submission cannot be accepted. Although the matter is awkwardly expressed, in General Comment No 2, para 18, the CAT is stating the proposition that a State’s failure to fulfil its obligation under the Convention to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish inhuman treatment committed by “non-State officials or private actors” will amount to the State’s consent to or acquiescence in those acts within the definition in article 1. It is that consent or acquiescence and not the status of the actor which gives the conduct its “official” character. This is a principle familiar in the fields of State responsibility and human rights. The State is responsible not because the acts of the individuals concerned are attributable to the State but because of its own failure to act in accordance with its obligations under the Convention. As a result, this passage does not assist the prosecution in establishing that acts of a de facto authority are within the scope of article 1. Indeed, the submission proves too much for, if correct, it would entirely negate the requirement that the conduct be that of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. 47. As a result, I consider that the General Comments of the CAT cast little light on the present issue. Decisions under article 22(7), UNCAT 48. A series of decisions of the CAT under article 22(7) UNCAT addresses the obligation on State Parties under article 3 not to expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. In these decisions the statements by the CAT in relation to the present issue are inconsistent. In SV v Canada (15 May 1996; Communication No 49/1996; UN Doc CAT/C/26/D/49/1996 (2001)) the authors complained that they were at risk of torture by the Sri Lankan authorities, but also complained that they were at risk of torture by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (“LTTE”) a rebel organisation which, the decision recorded, had in 1990 taken Page 23