Article 1. Definition of Torture 51 with its obligations under the Convention.141 In relation to the Republic of Korea, the Committee noted that the sleep deprivation practised on suspects amounted to torture in many cases and was unacceptable.142 92  The Human Rights Committee has held that the ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ constitute a violation of Article 7, but has not clarified whether it holds that they amount to torture or other ill-​treatment.143 93  The Committee has made clear that acts of psychological torture should not be limited to ‘prolonged mental harm’ as set out in the US understandings lodged at the time of ratification of the Convention, but constitute a wider category of acts, which cause severe mental suffering, irrespective of their prolongation or its duration.144 Thus, not only systematic or prolonged conduct can inflict severe pain and suffering, but also a single act which causes severe mental suffering fulfils the criterion outlined in Article 1.145 Both the Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee have found that threats, in particular against the life of a person, amount to torture, because of the severe pain and suffering inflicted and fulfilment of the other elements of Article 1.146 The Committee also found that leading persons to a river bank and threatening them with drowning if not confessing or pointing a gun to the head of the person, constitutes torture, thereby acknowledging the severe pain and suffering inflicted.147 94 The Committee has found repeatedly, that national definitions of torture not encompassing mental pain or suffering are in breach of the Convention.148 95  In its Concluding Observations on Sri Lanka, the Committee has also pointed out that the definition in the Sri Lankan Criminal Code, restricting torture to ‘any act which causes severe pain, whether physical or mental’ and thus omitting ‘suffering’, is not sufficient, as it does not cover acts that are not violent per se, but nevertheless inflict suffering.149 96 Also dehumanizing practices such as enforced disappearance, which can have long-​lasting and very damaging consequences for the disappeared persons, as well as for family and loved ones, may qualify as causing severe pain and suffering under Article 1.150 The Committee found ‘regrettable’ the view of the United States that involvement in enforced disappearances did not constitute a form of torture.151 It reiterated its view that enforced disappearance constitutes torture within the meaning of Article 1 in the case   CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: USA’ (2006) UN Doc CAT/​C/​USA/​CO/​2, para 24.   A/​52/​44 (n 140) para 56. 143   HRC, ‘Concluding Observations: USA’ (2006) UN Doc CCPR/​C/​USA/​CO/​3/​Rev.1. 144   CAT/​C/​USA/​CO/​2 (n 141) para 13; see also CAT/​C/​USA/​CO/​3-​5 (n 86) para 9 and above 2.3. 145  AI, Combating Torture (n 135) 67. 146   A/​52/​44 (n 140) para 257; Mostafa Dadar v Canada, No 258/​2004, UN Doc CAT/​C/​35/​D/​258/​2004, 23 November 2005, paras 2.3, 8.6; CT and KM v Sweden, No 279/​2005 (n 125)  paras 2.1, 7.5; Njaru v Cameroon, No 1353/​2005, UN Doc CCPR/​C/​89/​D/​1353/​2005, 19 March 2007, paras 3.1, 6.1. 147   CAT/​C/​75 (n 127) para 143. 148  CAT, ‘Concluding Observations:  Gabon’ (2013) UN Doc CAT/​ C/​ GAB/​ CO/​ 1, para 7; CAT, ‘Concluding Observations:  Rwanda’ (2012) UN Doc CAT/​ C/​ RWA/​ CO/​ 1, para 7; CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: China’ (2008) UN Doc CAT/​C/​CHN/​CO/​4, para 33; CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: China’ (2016) UN Doc CAT/​C/​CHN/​CO/​5, para 7. 149   CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: Sri Lanka’ (2011) UN Doc CAT/​C/​LKA/​CO/​3-​4, para 25. 150   art 24 CED; Almeida de Quinteros v Uruguay, No 107/​1981, CCPR/​C/​19/​D/​107/​1981, 15 October 1982, para 14; Kurt v Turkey ECHR 1998-​III para 134; Ipek v Turkey App no 25760/​94 (ECtHR, 17 February 2004) para 183; Blake v Guatemala, Series C No 36 (IACtHR, 2 July 1998) para 116. See also AI, Combating Torture (n 135) 136. 151   CAT/​C/​USA/​CO/​2 (n 141) para  18. 141 142 Zach