38 United Nations Convention Against Torture and its Optional Protocol placing in a dark cell, and all cruel inhuman or degrading punishments shall be completely prohibited as punishments for disciplinary offences’. 48  Article 1 of the original Swedish draft (which was identical to Article 1 of the 1975 Declaration) contained an exception relating to ‘pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions to the extent consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules’. However, for reasons noted above several delegations objected to the reference to the Standard Minimum Rules and it was not included in the final text of the Convention. 49  Article II (c)  of the draft submitted by the IAPL suggested alternative wording ‘. . . save where such conduct is in a proper execution of a lawful sanction not constituting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. There were no comments made on the IAPL proposal. 50  In written comments in 197868 the United States accepted the concept that pain or suffering ‘arising only from, inherent in or incidental to sanctions lawfully imposed’ should be exempted from the definition of torture, arguing that it would be ‘inappropriate and politically unacceptable to use the convention as a means of reaching sanctions practised by one culture of which another culture may disapprove’. 51  France proposed a clear distinction between penalties affecting the person and honour of the criminal (peines afflictives et infamantes) which could legitimately be imposed as punishment and treatment which by causing violent physical pain or extreme mental suffering, altering the physical capacity of the victims or making the victim an object of derision or hatred, tortures the person to whom it is applied. The USSR highlighted the need to draw a clear distinction between measures that legitimately applied to offenders and forms of treatment or punishment which, because of their cruel, inhuman or particularly degrading nature, cannot be regarded as acceptable. 52  While the United States felt that it would be desirable to retain the concept that sanctions must be lawfully imposed in order to be exempted from the definition of torture, they suggested that language should be added to make the defence that a sanction was ‘lawfully imposed’ inapplicable when it was ‘imposed in flagrant disregard of accepted international standards’. The United States went on to elaborate that the negotiating history should show that ‘such standards are presently embodied in article II of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 75(4) of Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions (although such standards are subject to amendments over time)’. 53  During the discussion in the 1979 Working Group some representatives made the point that the limitation clause relating to ‘pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions’ should have been deleted as too broadly worded. Several delegates stated that it was desirable to refer to ‘existing international standards’ or to use some other formulation in order to ensure that certain existing or future ‘lawful sanctions’ did not frustrate the spirit of the international Convention. However, it was widely agreed that, in the absence of specific existing international standards, it was not advisable to refer to universally acceptable principles.69 As no agreement was possible on reference to accepted international standards, the adopted text removed the reference to the Standard Minimum Rules while maintaining a general exception for pain and suffering resulting from lawful sanctions.   E/​CN.4/​1314  (n  8). 68 Zach   E/​CN.4/​L.1470 (n 7) para 21. 69