Article 1. Definition of Torture 39 54  This outcome was clearly the result of a compromise between two opposing views. During the fortieth session of the Commission the United Kingdom voiced concern over the lawful sanctions clause, arguing that in order to prevent the provisions of the Convention from being bypassed, it should not exclude pain and suffering deriving from the use of lawful sanctions. Uruguay expressed serious misgivings in relation to Article 1 and in particular to the lawful sanctions clause, asking ‘how can sanctions which might cause pain or suffering be considered lawful?’70 The Observer for Norway voiced that his delegation would have preferred to have seen the omission of the exemption for lawful sanctions.71 Canada also complained about the exclusion of pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.72 While accepting the wording of Article 1(1) as a compromise, Belgium voiced concern over the notion of ‘lawful sanction’, arguing that it was imprecise and thus constituted an even broader ‘escape clause’ than had Article 1 of the 1975 Declaration. In their written comments the Netherlands (‘the word “lawful” must be understood as referring to compatibility with both national and international law’), the United Kingdom (‘it should be understood that any such sanctions must be lawful under international as well as national law’), Italy (‘perplexed by the definition contained in Article 1(1), above all in relation to “lawful sanctions” which in any case must be understood as referring also to international law’) and the United States (‘lawful sanctions . . . must be understood to mean sanctions which are “lawful” under both national and international law’) took the view that the expression must be interpreted as reflecting commonly accepted international legal standards.73 55  The result was that certain Islamic States were now offered an opening to be party to this instrument. The Working Group did not include the same exception in Article 16. During the 1981 Working Group it was suggested that a provision similar to the last sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 1 should be inserted in Article 16, in order to exclude from the scope of Article 16 suffering arising only from lawful sanctions, as had been done in the definition of torture in Article 1 of the draft Convention. That suggestion was opposed by several members who pointed out that the purpose of Article 16 was to prohibit the existence of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment, not to legalize it by having such treatment incorporated into law. The reply elicited by that interpretation of the suggestion was that the last sentence in paragraph 1 of Article 1 did not admit the legalization of torture. Attention was also drawn to the distinction between the legal connotations of the concepts of ‘punishment’ and ‘lawful sanctions’. It has been pointed out that punishment on the basis of Shari’a law could now be in conflict with Article 16 of the Convention.74 56  The so called ‘saving clause’ in Article 1(2) outlines that the definition does not affect the protection which can be derived from other international instruments from national legislation of wider application. At the same time other international instruments or national law can never restrict the protection which individuals enjoy under the Convention. This clause was first proposed by Sweden as a draft Article 1(3) at the pre-​ sessional discussions at the thirty-​fourth session with different wording: ‘. . . this Article is   E/​CN.4/​1984/​SR.33 (n 16) 10.   Summary Records of the thirty-​fourth Meeting of the Commission on Human Rights (1984) UN Doc E/​CN.4/​1984/​SR.34, 17, para  104. 72   E/​CN.4/​1984/​72 (n  14). 73   See A/​39/​499 (n 28), 3 (Belgium), 11 (Italy), 13 (Netherlands), 19 (UK), 21 (US). 74   Burgers and Danelius (n 32) 46–​47. 70 71 Zach