Article 1. Definition of Torture 65 that his Government considered as lawful sanctions only such punishments as were permitted under national and international law, which clearly excluded a punishment such as the severing of limbs, Committee members remained silent.250 When the Dutch delegation in 1990 asked the question whether corporal punishment in general fell under lawful sanctions, the Committee did not use this opportunity to address this delicate issue.251 It was only during the consideration of the Namibian report in 1997 that the Committee for the first time in clear terms recommended the ‘prompt abolition of corporal punishment insofar as it is legally possible under the Prisons Act of 1959 and the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977’.252 139  Most revealing and controversial was the fairly long and somewhat polemical debate on the question whether corporal punishment was covered by the lawful sanctions clause during the examination of the report of Saudi Arabia in 2002.253 In response to a respective Committee question, the representative of Saudi Arabia explained that corporal punishment was administered under full medical, judicial, and administrative supervision, full account being taken of the health status of the person concerned. The Quran set out specific sanctions such as amputation, flogging (whipping), and stoning for certain crimes. These sanctions emanated from God, were the law of the land and, therefore, permitted by the lawful sanctions clause in Article 1 CAT. In its Concluding Observations, the Committee expressed deep concern and recommended that the State party re-​examine its imposition of corporal punishment (including in particular flogging and amputation of limbs), ‘which are in breach of the Convention’.254 A  similar recommendation was expressed more recently, when the Committee recommended Saudi Arabia to stop immediately the practices of flogging/​lashing, amputation of limbs, and any other form of corporal punishment and prohibit their use by law, as they amount to torture and ill-​treatment and constitute a violation of the Convention.255 140  When considering the report of Yemen in 2003, the Committee attempted to distinguish between Articles 1 and 16 in relation to corporal punishment:256 On the matter of flogging, the Committee had been apprised that the purpose of the punishment was not so much to inflict pain as to humiliate the victim. The Committee noted, that if the purpose was to inflict pain, the punishment would seem to violate Article 1, and if the object was simply to humiliate the victim, it appeared to constitute a violation of Article 16. 141 The Committee also expressed concern regarding certain provisions of the Criminal Code of Qatar allowing punishments such as flogging and stoning to be imposed as criminal sanctions by judicial and administrative authorities and, whilst not referring to a specific article, concluded that these practices constituted a breach of the obligations imposed by the Convention. It asked the State party to review the relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Code with a view to abolishing them immediately.257 250  CAT, ‘Consideration of Reports submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention, Addendum Switzerland’ (1989) UN Doc CAT/​C/​5/​Add.17 and CAT/​C/​SR.28, para 11. 251 252   CAT/​C/​SR.47, paras  81ff.   A/​52/​44 (n 140) para 250. 253   CAT/​C/​SR.519 and 525. See also Faria Coracini and Eduardo Celso, ‘The Lawful Sanctions Clause in the State Reporting Procedure before the Committee against Torture’ (2006) 24 NQHR 305. 254  CAT, ‘Concluding Observations:  Saudi Arabia’ (2002) UN Doc CAT/​C/​CR/​28/​5, paras 4(a), (b), and 8(b). 255   CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: Saudi Arabia’ (2016) UN Doc CAT/​C/​SAU/​CO/​2, para 11. 256   CAT/​C/​SR.583, para  10. 257   CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: Qatar’ (2006) UN Doc CAT/​C/​QAT/​CO/​1, para 12. Zach