42 United Nations Convention Against Torture and its Optional Protocol 3.  Issues of Interpretation 3.1 The Definition of Torture 63  According to Article 1(1), the term ‘torture’ means ‘any act by which severe pain or suffering’ is intentionally inflicted on a person for a specific purpose. The different elements of torture—​conduct, infliction of severe pain and suffering, intention, purpose, the involvement of a public official, as well as powerlessness as an important distinguishing criterion—​shall be discussed subsequently. 64  There is a clear understanding, underlined by the Committee as well as the UNSRT, that the definition of torture is not only to apply to interrogation settings, but also to areas like gender-​based violence, abuses in healthcare, etc.88 Both in the Concluding Observations, as well as in in the individual complaints procedure, the Committee has outlined which acts or omissions may amount to torture and how the different elements are to be interpreted. 3.1.1 Conduct 65  Whereas Article I of the IAPL draft refers to ‘any conduct’, Article 1 CAT is based in this respect on Article 1 of the Declaration and the Swedish draft which use the term ‘act’ which might give rise to a more narrow interpretation excluding omissions. Nothing in the travaux préparatoires indicates, however, that the drafters had in mind such a narrow interpretation that would exclude a conduct which intentionally deprives detainees of food, water and medical treatment from the definition of torture. 66  Already in the Greek case, which was one of the main sources of inspiration for Article 1 CAT, the European Commission on Human Rights had held that ‘the failure of the Government of Greece to provide food, water, heating in winter, proper washing facilities, clothing, medical and dental care to prisoners constitutes an “act” of torture in violation of article 3 of the ECHR’.89 Since States have a legal duty arising from various human rights to provide detainees with adequate food, water, medical care, clothing, etc., it would indeed, as Boulesbaa suggested, be ‘absurd to conclude that the prohibition of torture in the context of Article 1 does not extend to conduct by way of omission’.90 The Committee has equally clarified that States are responsible for both, acts and omissions.91 3.1.2 Infliction of Severe Pain and Suffering 3.1.2.1 Severity as a Distinguishing Element between Torture and Ill-​Treatment? 67 Torture is a particularly grave human rights violation. During the drafting of Article 1, it was, therefore, generally agreed that only conduct which causes severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, can amount to torture. Otherwise this term would be used in an inflationary manner. The word ‘severe’ can be found in the 1975 88   CAT, ‘General Comment No 2 on the Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties’ (2008) UN Doc CAT/​C/​GC/​2, para 18; SRT (Nowak) ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’ (2008) UN Doc A/​HRC/​7/​3, para 68; SRT (Mendez) ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’ (2013) UN Doc A/​HRC/​22/​53, para 81. 89   Opinion of the Commission of 5 November 1969 in the Greek Case (1969) XII Yearbook, 461. 90   Boulesbaa (n 30)  14ff. See also Burgers and Danelius (n 32)  118; Chris Ingelse, The UN Committee against Torture: An Assessment (Kluwer Law International 2001) 208. 91   CAT/​C/​GC/​2 (n 88) para  15. Zach