degree of actual control of an area and that it exercised the type of functions which a government or governmental organisation would exercise? It seems to me that I have to take care not to impose Western ideas of an appropriate structure for government, but to be sensitive to the fact that in countries such as Afghanistan different types of structure may exist, but which may legitimately come within the ambit of an authority which wields power sufficient to constitute an official body.” (at para 33) He rejected a submission, based on Elmi, that the mere fact that there is a central government in existence precludes there being a de facto authority of which a person might be a public official or on whose behalf a person might act in a similar capacity. He considered that the words “person acting in a public capacity” included those acting for an entity which had acquired de facto effective control over an area of a country and was exercising governmental or quasi-governmental functions in that area. In his view, there was material on which a jury could conclude that Zardad was such a de facto public official in an area totally controlled by his organisation which exercised, with a degree of permanence, functions which would be functions of a state authority (at paras 34-38). 64. Mr Powles submits that Zardad is wrongly decided. However, I find the approach of Treacy J compelling and in conformity with the preponderant weight of material relevant to the interpretation of article 1, UNCAT. 65. Zardad is also instructive as to which features are indicative of governmental activity. There, in support of its contention that Zardad should be treated as a public official on a de facto basis, the prosecution maintained that Zardad was akin to a Military Governor in control of a province and that he was, accordingly, to be regarded as a quasi-official and amenable to the provisions of section 134 CJA. Treacy J drew attention, inter alia, to Zardad’s admission that he was a general within Hekmatyar’s army (Hekmatyar being the leader of the Hezb-I-Islami faction), which controlled the Sarobi area, and to the clear command structure within that force. The judge referred to the fact that prisons within the controlled area were run by Hezb-I-Islami which was the only law enforcement authority in the area and to the role of Hezb-I-Islami and Zardad personally in arresting and imprisoning lawbreakers and in mediating and resolving disputes between individuals. Representatives of international organisations and aid agencies would make representations to Zardad, as opposed to any central government authority, if equipment was seized or delayed at any of the checkpoints for which Zardad’s force was responsible. Those who complained of ill-treatment, torture and hostage taking regarded Zardad and Hekmatyar as the only official authority in the area which was dominated and controlled by them. Against this background Treacy J concluded: Page 31