III. The Perpetrator of the Infliction The position of the HRC is constant in the definition it gives of the perpetrator of the act of torture. It includes not only the public authorities but also groups and individuals acting within the State Party’s territory with its open or tacit consent. In its General Comment 20 (44th session), in qualifying the author of violations of Article 7, the HRC has distinguished among perpetrators acting in their official capacity, outside their official capacity, or in a private capacity. The HRC added that this definition also extends to law enforcement personnel, medical personnel, police officers, and “any other persons involved in the custody or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment”. The HRC has recognised that torture is defined as such when committed by the police, security forces281 and members of the army282 as well as by “paramilitary and other armed groups or individuals”283 and “foreign soldiers operating within the State Party’s territory”284. In its early jurisprudence, the HRC had included binational commandos in the definition of authors of acts of torture.285 Conclusion The HRC has underlined that these elements could lead to torture only when they are all taken together. A person who is severely ill-treated is not tortured if the perpetrators do not have a specific intention when they inflict pain on him or her286. In the same way, a person who is ill-treated for political reasons but who is not subjected to severe ill-treatment is not considered to have been tortured287. With its jurisprudence, the HRC clearly shows that its position on Article 7 can vary depending on the case examined and has not established any firm rules. It is also very hard to predict how the HRC will deal with future cases of torture. This position, therefore, differs from the Committee against Torture’s, whose jurisprudence is more predictable, having to give effect to very precise articles. ANNEX ANNEX IV In the beginning the HRC used to refer to torture when examining allegations of such acts; it later then considered Article 7 as a whole without distinguishing between the terms of the provision. In so doing, the HRC decided to pronounce only on the provision as a whole based on its understanding of the task to “give effect to the provisions of the Covenant”. After having made its conclusions on each article, the HRC, once it has proven that the State Party has violated the provision, proceeded to recommend that the government provide for effective remedies in response to the violation of the article as a whole288. If the HRC has specified that the victim was subjected to severe ill-treatment, it was only to stress the significance of the violation289. 79