Article 2. Obligation to Prevent Torture 75 other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment from being practised within its jurisdiction. 9  Revised Swedish Draft (19 February 1979)5 Article 2 1 . Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2 . No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture 3 . An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture [however, this may be considered a ground for mitigation of punishment, if justice so requires]. 2.2 Analysis of Working Group Discussions 10  In written comments Austria suggested that Article 3 of the original Swedish draft be merged with Article 2(1)6 and later, during the 1979 Working Group discussions, it was agreed that the obligations of States in Articles 2(1) and 3 of the original Swedish draft could be consolidated.7 It was further agreed to delete Article 3 on the basis that its objective had been achieved by the revised Article 2(1) which generally corresponds to Article 4 of the 1975 Declaration.8 Regarding the precise duty of States parties to the Convention, it was pointed out by one delegate that while a State could undertake to adopt measures to prevent torture, it could not undertake to ensure that torture would never occur. Other delegates also questioned whether Article 2(1) was not too broad, or was juridically sound.9 11  There were differing views as to whether reference should be made to torture alone or also to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. During the 1979 Working Group several delegates suggested the deletion of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment because of the difficulty of defining the term.10 In written comments, the United States expressed the view that it considered it appropriate that Article 3 of the Swedish draft also address cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment since virtually identical obligations were already imposed under the CCPR and because ‘the nature of the obligation was not likely to deter many States from ratifying the Convention’. The United States also sought to incorporate Article 7(2) of the Swedish draft as a second paragraph to this Article which requires that torture be punished by severe penalties.11 At the same time, the United States took the opposite view regarding Article 2(2) of the Swedish draft, preferring to limit its scope to torture alone. 12  During the discussion in the 1979 Working Group there was a French proposal that the words ‘within its jurisdiction’ be replaced by ‘any territory under its jurisdiction’.12 It was stated that the phrase ‘within its jurisdiction’ might be interpreted too widely so as to cover citizens of one State who are resident within the territory of another 5   Revised Text of the Substantive Parts of the Draft Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Submitted by Sweden (1979) UN Doc E/​CN.4/​WG.1/​WP.1. 6   Summary by the Secretary-​General in Accordance with Commission Resolution 18 (XXXIV) of the Commission on Human Rights (1978) UN Doc E/​CN.4/​1314, para 52. 7   Report of the Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights (1979) UN Doc E/​CN.4/​L.1470, para 31. 8 9 10 11   ibid, para 38.   ibid, para 31.   ibid, para 34.   E/​CN.4/​1314 (n 6) para 57. 12   ibid, para 54. Zach