refer can be said to provide some support for the interpretation for which the prosecution contends. 33. Mr Powles also relies on passages in Burgers and Danelius concerning the drafting history in support of his reading of article 1. “There were different opinions on the question as to whether or not the definition of torture in the convention should be limited to acts of public officials. It was pointed out by many States that the purpose of the convention was to provide protection against acts committed on behalf of, or at least tolerated by, the public authorities, whereas the State could normally be expected to take action according to its criminal law against private persons having committed acts of torture against other persons. However, France considered that the definition of the act of torture should be a definition of the intrinsic nature of the act of torture itself, irrespective of the status of the perpetrator. Although there was little support for the French view on this matter, most States agreed that the convention should not only be applicable to acts committed by public officials, but also to acts for which the public authorities could otherwise be considered to have some responsibility.” (Burgers and Danelius (above) at p 45, original emphasis) In a further passage, Burgers and Danelius state: “In principle, the common element of the purposes referred to in the definition should rather be understood to be the existence of some - even remote - connection with the interests or policies of the State and its organs. It is important to note, in this context, that the primary objective of the Convention is to eliminate torture committed by or under the responsibility of public officials for purposes connected with their public functions. Precisely because the public interest is sometimes seen in such cases as a justification, the authorities may be reluctant to suppress these practices. The provisions of the Convention are intended to ensure that torture does not occur in such cases or that, if it occurs, action is taken against the offender.” (Burgers and Danelius (above), at pp 118-119) Page 17