E/CN.4/2006/6 page 12 IV. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN TORTURE AND CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT 34. The Special Rapporteur observes that an increasing number of Governments, in the aftermath of 11 September 2001 and other terrorist attacks, have adopted a legal position which, while acknowledging the absolute nature of the prohibition on torture, brings the absolute nature of the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (CIDT) into question. In particular, it is argued that certain harsh interrogation methods falling short of torture might be justified for the purpose of extracting information aimed at preventing future terrorist acts that might kill many innocent people. Definitions 35. Torture is defined in CAT, article 1, as acts which consist of the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering (physical or mental), involving a public official (directly or at the instigation or consent or with the acquiescence of a public official, or another person acting in an official capacity), and for a specific purpose (i.e. extracting a confession, obtaining information, punishment, intimidation, discrimination). Acts which fall short of this definition, particularly acts without the elements of intent or acts not carried out for the specific purposes outlined, may comprise CIDT under article 16 of the Convention. Acts aimed at humiliating the victim constitute degrading treatment or punishment even where severe pain has not been inflicted. 36. The prohibitions against torture and CIDT are non-derogable under both ICCPR (article 7 concerning torture and CIDT and article 4 (2) on derogation during states of emergency), and CAT does not permit derogation from its provisions. 37. Certain obligations under CAT apply to torture only (above all, the obligation to criminalize acts of torture in and to apply the principle of universal jurisdiction in this regard), whereas other obligations aimed at prevention, in particular by means of education and training, by systematically reviewing interrogation rules and practices, by ensuring a prompt and impartial ex officio investigation, and by ensuring an effective complaints mechanism, as laid down in articles 10 to 13, must be equally applied to other forms of ill-treatment as well (i.e. art. 16 (1)). Disproportionate exercise of police powers 38. Inherent in the concept of CIDT is the disproportionate exercise of police powers. The beating of a detainee with a truncheon for the purpose of extracting a confession must be considered torture if it inflicts severe pain or suffering; the beating of a detainee with a truncheon walking to and from a cell might amount to CIDT, but the beating of demonstrators in the street with the same truncheon for the purpose of dispersing an illegal demonstration or prison riot, for example, might be justified as lawful use of force by law enforcement officials.1 In other words, since the enforcement of the law against suspected criminals, rioters or terrorists may legitimately require the use of force, and even of lethal weapons, by the police and other security forces, only if such use of force is disproportionate in relation to the purpose to be achieved and results in pain or suffering meeting a certain threshold, will it amount to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment. Whether the use of force is to be qualified as lawful, in terms of article 16 of CAT or article 7 of ICCPR, or excessive depends on the proportionality of