A/73/207 45. Recently, States have even increasingly attempted to reinterpret certain coercive interrogation practices as not violating the prohibition of torture and ill -treatment, predominantly in the context of counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency (see A/71/298, para. 9, and A/59/324, paras. 14–16). Arguments are continually made for narrowing the definition of the prohibited conduct, for example by over -emphasizing the criterion of the “severity” of the pain and suffering inflicted and, in particular, by requiring that serious injury or long-term harm ensue before the action is considered to be in violation of the prohibition. That trend has been accompanied by the emergence of euphemistic terminology, such as “enhanced interrogation” or “pressure techniques”, and by the increasing use of methods specifically designed to avoid leaving physical traces, such as stress positions, sleep deprivation, suffocation, hooding or blind-folding, and long-term exposure to physical discomfort, mental pressure and sensory destabilization. 46. In the view of the Special Rapporteur, it is difficult to envisage any realistic scenario of the intentional and purposeful infliction of pain and suffe ring on a powerless person that would not amount to torture. Without doubt, intentionally inflicting pain or suffering on a powerless person for purposes such as coercion, intimidation, punishment or discrimination always amounts to torture, irrespective o f whether the intended pain or suffering is caused by a single method or the accumulation of multiple techniques and circumstances, and regardless of whether the pursued purpose is achieved instantaneously, only after repeated or prolonged exposure, or cannot be achieved at all due to the victim’s resilience or other intervening circumstances. Moreover, it must be recalled that any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, regardless of whether it may be formally qualified as torture, is unlawful and cannot be justified under any circumstances. 2. Justification 47. Despite the absolute and non-derogable character of the prohibition, the idea persists that torture or ill-treatment can be justified in exceptional circumstances. Particularly in counter-terrorism, the use of coercive interrogation has been portrayed as a “necessary evil” to ensure public safety and national security, a narrative that has been widely replicated in TV series and other mainstream entertainment and which seems to have strongly influenced an increased public tolerance for torture. Most notably, based on the so-called “ticking bomb” scenario, it is argued that the duty of States to protect the lives of their inhabitants should take precedence over the protection of terrorist suspects against torture when coercive interrogation is perceived as being absolutely necessary to “extract” information required to locate and neutralize a bomb threatening many innocent lives. 48. Exceptionalist narratives such as the “ticking bomb” scenario are fundamentally flawed on several levels. First, from a practical perspective, interrogators can rarely be certain as to whether a suspect really possesses the required information and whether the alleged bomb exists or simply has been invented in order to spread terror, thus entailing a significant risk of error. Second, as a matter of logic, even when suspects possess the required information, they have little reason to tell the truth, as false information can equally interrupt the torture and cause interrogators to lose time verifying the information without being able to neutralize the presumed bomb. Third, from a policy perspective, to permit the use of torture even in the most exceptional circumstances necessarily requires the creation of a system, policy and culture of torture, with interrogators being “trained” accordingly. Experience shows that, once that process has taken place, torture and ill-treatment invariably become a pervasive practice that is impossible to control (see also A/HRC/13/39/Add.5, para. 56). Fourth, from a legal perspective, the “ticking bomb” narrative is based on the misleading rationale that torture should be permitted as a necessary means of last resort, whereby 18-12051 13/23