Article 1. Definition of Torture 45 72 It follows that the severity of pain or suffering, although constituting an essential element of the definition of torture, is not a criterion distinguishing torture from cruel and inhuman treatment.102 In principle, every form of cruel and inhuman treatment (including torture) requires the infliction of severe pain or suffering. Only in the case of particularly humiliating treatment might the infliction of non-​severe pain or suffering reach the level of degrading treatment or punishment in violation of Article 16.103 Whether or not cruel or inhuman treatment can also be qualified as torture depends on the fulfilment of the other definition requirements in Article 1, above all whether inhuman treatment was used for any of the purposes spelt out therein. 73  The practice of the Committee partly, but not consistently confirmed the interpretation that severity is not the decisive criterion when it comes to distinguishing between torture and other forms of ill-​treatment, but that the purpose and intention are relevant when undertaking this legal qualification.104 In the individual complaints procedure, when finding a case of torture in accordance with the definition of Article 1, the Committee mostly does not explain exactly how it comes to the conclusion that each of the elements is fulfilled.105 But it often seems to make sure, that it establishes that one of the purposes in line Article 1 is fulfilled.106 For example, in Patrice Gahungu v. Burundi, the Committee concluded, that the treatment inflicted was ‘probably aimed at forcing a confession from him’107 and without any additional analysis found torture in accordance with Article 1. 74  The examination of the reports submitted by Israel also provides for a good basis in assessing the Committee’s approach to the definition of torture under Article 1, as well as the distinguishing elements between the definition of torture under Article 1 and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under Article 16.108 In 1987, the Government of Israel had appointed the Landau Commission of Inquiry, headed by former Supreme Court President, Justice Moshe Landau, to examine the General Security Service’s (GSS) methods of interrogation of terrorist suspects. The Landau Commission’s guidelines on interrogation, which were adopted by the Israeli authorities, determined that in dealing with dangerous terrorists who represent a grave threat to the State of Israel and its citizens, the use of a moderate degree of pressure, including physical pressure, in order to obtain crucial information, was unavoidable under certain circumstances.109 To ensure that disproportionate pressure was not used, the Landau Commission identified several 102   See also Rodley, ‘The Definition(s) of Torture’ (n 23) 491: ‘So I maintain my preference for suppressing the element of aggravation in the understanding of the notion of torture’; Evans (n 98) 365–​83: ‘Why not abandon all thoughts of a “vertical model” and replace it with a “horizontal model”, in which “torture” and “inhuman” and “degrading” treatment all stand alongside each other.’ On the distinction between torture and CIDT, see SRT (Nowak) E/​CN.4/​2006/​6. See also Nowak, ‘Challenges to the Absolute Nature’ (n 96) 674. 103   See below Art 16. 104   A/​HRC/​13/​39 (n 99) para 60; A/​72/​178 (n 99) para 31; Nowak, ‘What Practices Constitute Torture?’ (n 96). 105   See eg Déogratias Niyonzima v Burundi, No 514/​2012, UN Doc CAT/​C/​53/​D/​514/​2012, 21 November 2014; HB v Algeria, No 494/​2012, UN Doc CAT/​C/​55/​D/​494/​2012, 6 August 2015, para 6.2. 106  eg Patrice Gahungu v Burundi, No 522/​2012, UN Doc CAT/​C/​55/​D/​522/​2012, 10 August 2015, paras 7.2, 7.3; HB v Algeria, No 494/​2012 (n 105) para 6.2; EN v Burundi, No 578/​2013, UN Doc CAT/​C/​56/​D/​ 578/​2013, 25 November 2015, para 7.2. See also below 3.1.4. 107   Patrice Gahungu v Burundi, No 522/​2012 (n 106) para 7.2. 108   See also Rodley, ‘The Treatment of Prisoners’ (n 98) 83ff; Ingelse (n 90) 226ff. 109   cf the revised version of a special report submitted by Israel on 17 February 1997 in accordance with a request of the Committee, CAT/​C/​33/​Add.2/​Rev.1, para 5. See Israel, ‘Consideration of Reports submitted by States Parties under article 19 of the Convention’ (1997) Doc CAT/​C/​33/​Add.2/​Rev.1, para 5. Zach