Article 1. Definition of Torture 27 12  On the other hand France made clear its position that cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment involves acts of physical or mental torture and that no distinction should be drawn between the two; that, on the contrary, torture should be defined in such a way as to encompass both. At the same time Switzerland argued that any definition could have the effect of limiting the scope of the concept which it sets out to define and that therefore it was essential to ensure that the definition of torture did not result in any weakening of existing law, which prohibits torture and inhuman treatment unconditionally and in the same manner and makes no distinction as to the respective seriousness of such acts. The Swiss Government argued that for these reasons the Convention should cover acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, on the same footing and proposed the following text: ‘the term “torture” includes, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’10 13  During deliberations in the 1979 Working Group many delegations expressed the view that Article 1(2) of the original Swedish draft risked unduly restricting the definition of torture and should be deleted. On the other hand several delegates pointed out that the deletion of this reference would not in any case prejudge the broader issue of whether subsequent articles of the Convention should apply only to torture or also to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Article 1(2) was placed in square brackets to be discussed at a later date. 14  This matter was resolved during the 1980 Working Group through the inclusion in Article 16(1) of language providing that the obligations in the Convention and, ‘in particular’, contained in the text of Articles [3]‌, 10, 11, 12, 13, [14] and [15] which only apply to torture, should also apply to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. During the debate in the 1980 Working Group one delegate pointed out that Article 1(3) of the revised Swedish text had specified that the Article was without prejudice to provisions of a wider application relating to the subject matter of the Convention and that similarly Article 16 (of the revised Swedish draft) was a saving clause affirming the continued validity of other instruments prohibiting punishments or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It was at this point that a proposal was made to have the following text as paragraph 1 of Article 16 with the original text of the revised Swedish version appearing as Article 16(2): Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not constitute torture as defined in Article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in Articles [3]‌, 10, 11, 12,13, [14] and [15] shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.11 15  In support of the proposal it was emphasized that international conventions that prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and in particular the CCPR and the ECHR, were already in force and that the prohibition was necessary to prevent offenders from taking advantage of an unduly narrow interpretation of the word ‘torture’. Other   E/​CN.4/​1314 (n 8) para 36.   Report of the Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights (1980) UN Doc E/​CN.4/​1367, para 87, referring to the proposal in document HR/​XXXVI/​WG.10/​WP.5/​Rev.1. 10 11 Zach