A/60/316 United Kingdom, held that corporal punishment in the home also constitutes degrading punishment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention.21 25. In March 2005, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in Winston Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago, condemned, for the first time, judicially sanctioned corporal punishment.22 Unanimously, the Court held that “punishment by lashes of the ‘cat of nine tails’ is, in its very nature, intention and consequence, incompatible with the standards of human treatment as established in articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights”. The Court considered that the very nature of this punishment reflects an institutionalization of violence, which, although permitted by the law, ordered by the State’s judges and carried out by its prison authorities, is a sanction incompatible with the Convention. As such, corporal punishment by flogging was deemed to constitute a form of torture and, therefore, is a violation per se of the right of any person submitted to such punishment to have his physical, mental and moral integrity respected. C. Conclusion 26. The Special Rapporteur recalls that the Commission on Human Rights has stated on numerous occasions that “corporal punishment, including of children, can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or even to torture”.23 In this regard, the Special Rapporteur endorses the view taken by his predecessor, Sir Nigel Rodley, that corporal punishment is inconsistent with the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment enshrined, inter alia, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.24 With respect to international humanitarian law, he notes that the infliction of corporal punishment on prisoners of war or on protected civilians would involve a clear breach of State responsibility under the Geneva Conventions, of 12 August 1949, and Additional Protocol I thereto.25 Article 4 of Additional Protocol II contains fundamental guarantees of humane treatment and specifies as prohibited acts any form of corporal punishment. Moreover, rule 31 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners provides that “corporal punishment, punishment by placing in a dark cell, and all cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments shall be completely prohibited as punishments for disciplinary offences.” 27. The Special Rapporteur points out that the term “lawful sanctions” in article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention against Torture must be interpreted as referring both to domestic and international law. Furthermore, the savings clause in article 1, paragraph 2, explicitly provides that article 1, paragraph 1, is without prejudice to any international instrument which contains provisions of wider application. It follows from the international and regional case law cited above that corporal punishment is in violation of international law (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 7; European Convention on Human Rights, art. 3; American Convention on Human Rights, art. 5). It therefore cannot be considered a “lawful sanction” in accordance with article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention against Torture. 8