- 13 - CDL-AD(2006)009 the ECHR, may be relevant in the case of extradition and will have to be respected, the most important being Articles 2 and 3, and in some circumstances Articles 5 and 6. 53. Article 5 must be seen as requiring the authorities of the territorial State to take effective measures to safeguard against the risk of disappearance and to conduct a prompt effective investigation into a substantiated claim that a person has been taken into custody and has not been seen since21. ii) Torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 54. Torture is prohibited by Article 3 ECHR, Article 7 ICCPR, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It is defined as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”22 55. The crucial distinction between “torture”, “inhuman treatment” and “degrading treatment” lies in the degree of suffering caused. 56. “Inhuman treatment” is such treatment which causes severe suffering, mental or physical, which, in the particular situation, is unjustifiable. Unlike torture, inhuman treatment does not need to be intended to cause suffering.23 In its judgment in Ireland v. United Kingdom24, the European Court of Human Rights held that the so-called “five techniques” were inhuman treatment. This decision has sometimes been misunderstood to mean that the same or similar techniques would not amount to torture. However, in the Selmouni case the Court later clarified that, since the Convention is a “living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions”, acts which were classified in the past as “inhuman and degrading treatment” could be classified as torture in future.25 The Court stated that “the increasingly high standard being required in the area of the protection of human rights and fundamental liberties correspondingly and inevitably requires greater firmness in assessing breaches of the fundamental values of democratic societies.”26 21 European Court of Human Rights, Kurt v. Turkey judgment of 25 May 1988, § 124 22 Article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 23 European Court of Human Rights, Ireland v. UK judgment of 18 January 1978, § 167 24 European Court of Human Rights, Ireland v.UK judgment, § 167. 25 European Court of Human Rights Selmouni v. France judgment of 29 July 1999, § 101. 26 European Court of Human Rights, Selmouni v. France judgment, § 101.