Article 1. Definition of Torture 29 a legitimate claim to compensation. Other representatives did not feel that extension of the scope of their compensation laws to an ill-​defined field to include all such treatments would be warranted. Since no consensus could be reached, the Group decided to revert to this question at a later stage.13 No consensus was possible either in the 1983 Working Group. During the 1984 Working Group several delegates expressed themselves in favour of including the reference to Article 14 in Article 16(1). Some of the other speakers opposed the reference, fearing that the concept of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment was too imprecise as a basis for an enforceable right to compensation and might lead to difficulties of interpretation and possible abuses. While one representative suggested that the Working Group might try again to agree on a definition of this concept, others, who were in favour of including the reference, expressed the opinion that a definition was not necessary and that each country would develop its own case law on this matter. India asked that reference be made in the report to the general reservation concerning Article 14 which her delegation had entered at the previous session. The representative of Spain proposed the inclusion of references to Articles 3, 14, and 15 in Article 16(1), in order for the mechanism of protection to be in harmony with the title of the Convention itself which included ‘other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ arguing that if reference to these three articles was not acceptable to the Working Group, then the second sentence of paragraph 1 should be deleted. One other representative also proposed the deletion of the second sentence. In light of the ensuing discussion and in view of the fact that some of these issues had been debated in the past, the representative of Spain, in a spirit of compromise, withdrew his proposal. The representative of the USSR, in an effort to help overcome the difficulties with regard to the question, suggested that the Convention could specify that, in such a case, compensation would be limited to material damage and damage to the health of a person.14 After further consultations, the Chairman Rapporteur noted that several delegations which had favoured the inclusion of a reference to Article 14 had now indicated that they would not insist on such a reference if it created an obstacle to reaching agreement on draft Article 16. At its eleventh meeting, the Working Group decided to adopt draft Article 16, limiting the reference in the first paragraph to Articles 10, 11, 12, and 13. The delegations of Canada and Ireland stated that they had not opposed the adoption of Article 16, but that they wished to see registered in the report that their Governments retained a strong preference for including a reference to Article 14 in this provision. In written comments the representative of Canada outlined that his delegation had made considerable concessions in the Working Group, particularly in the matter of compensation for victims of cruel or degrading treatment and that the very definition of torture did not seem to his delegation to go far enough.15 The delegation of the USSR, drawing attention to the fact that Article 16 was   E/​CN.4/​1982/​L.40 (n  12).   Report of the Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights (1984) UN Doc E/​CN.4/​1984/​ 72, para 42 referring to the proposal E/​CN.4/​1984/​WG.2/​WP.5: ‘1. In the second sentence of paragraph 1 of article 16, delete the words “and [14]”; 2. At the end of the paragraph, add the sentence: “The obligation contained in Article 14 shall apply with the substitution indicated above in the event that such treatment or punishment caused its victim material loss or loss of health.” 3. After the first paragraph, insert a new paragraph: “2. In the determination of acts referred to in paragraph 1 of this article, each State Party shall act in accordance with the relevant international agreements binding on it and its national law” . . . 4. Paragraph 2 of article 16 should be renumbered as paragraph 3.’ 15   Summary Record of the thirty-​second Meeting (1984) of the Commission on Human Rights UN Doc E/​CN.4/​1984/​SR.32, 14, para  74. 13 14 Zach