Article 1. Definition of Torture 41 reservation, are related to the definition of torture in Article 1. For example, the United States ‘understands’ that in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.82 Furthermore, it understands the definition of torture ‘is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender’s custody or physical control’, that the term ‘acquiescence’ requires that ‘the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity’, and that ‘non-​compliance with applicable legal procedural standards does not per se constitute torture’.83 In response to these notable limitations on the scope of the definition, the Committee recommended that the United States enact a federal crime of torture in terms consistent with Article 1 and withdraw such reservations, interpretations, and understandings relating to the Convention.84 62 A  number of predominantly European Governments rightly objected to these far-​reaching reservations: Denmark, Norway and Sweden objected to the reservation of Botswana as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the CAT; Portugal, Italy, Peru and Latvia objected to the reservation by Fiji with the same line of argumentation; Norway objected to the ‘declaration’ by Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Sweden objected to Thailand’s ‘declaration’, underlining that ‘it is unclear to what extent the Kingdom of Thailand considers itself bound by the obligations of the treaty.’ Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden objected to the general reservation by Qatar. With respect to the US ‘understandings’, the Government of Sweden expressed the view that they ‘do not relieve the United States of America as a party to the Convention from the responsibility to fulfil the obligations undertaken therein’. The Government of the Netherlands considered some ‘understandings’ as insufficiently clear, while others appeared to ‘restrict the scope of the definition of torture’ or ‘diminish the continuous responsibility of public officials for behaviour of their subordinates’.85 The Committee recommended in its Concluding Observations to the US, that ‘it should give further consideration to withdrawing its interpretative understandings and reservations’,86 especially making sure that ‘acts of psychological torture are not qualified as “prolonged mental harm” ’.87   Understandings by the United States of America upon ratification (21 October 1994).  ibid. 84   CAT, ‘Report of the Committee Against Torture’ (2000) UN Doc A/​55/​44, para 180(a). 85   See below Appendix A4. 86   CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: USA’ (2014) UN Doc CAT/​C/​USA/​CO/​3-​5, para 9. 87  ibid. 82 83 Zach