Recommendation (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.6) a) The crime of torture should be defined as a matter of priority in accordance with article 1 of the Convention against Torture, with penalties commensurate with the gravity of torture. Situation in during visit in 2005 (See E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.6) No explicit definition of torture in domestic legislation; the existing legislation relevant to the prohibition and criminalization of torture did not satisfy the requirements of art.1 and 4 of CAT; in particular, it lacked the following elements: - mental torture; - the direct or indirect involvement of a public official or another person acting in an official capacity; and - Infliction of the act for a specific purpose. The penalization of acts of torture was stipulated in art. 247 and 248 of the Criminal Law (CL), however a number of other regulations permit exceptions (see infra Rec c)). Steps taken in previous years (See A/HRC/4/33/Add.2, A/HRC/7/3/Add.2, Information received in the A/HRC/10/44/Add.5 and A/HRC/16/52/Add.2) reporting period Non-governmental sources: It is reported that despite the introduction of new categories of offences relating to torture by the SPP, the definition of torture and the prohibition and criminalization of torture in Chinese law do not satisfy the requirements of Art. 1 and 4 CAT. It is reported that by including only a list of situations amounting to torture and ill-treatment, other torture methods risk to fall outside the law. Reportedly, in practice, the punishment against perpetrators of torture is very light in comparison to the gravity of the crime. It is alleged that it is still common that perpetrators of torture escape criminal punishment or any punishment at all. Reportedly, Chinese law, while criminalising torture, still fails to do so under a definition which conforms with international standards, in particular Article 1(1) of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Convention against Torture). Chinese law remains inadequate in three ways: 5 A/HRC/19/61/Add.3 Reportedly, the types of pain and suffering included within criminal law provisions for torture and other ill-treatment are insufficiently comprehensive and do not include mental pain and suffering. Articles 247 and 248 of the Chinese Criminal Code refer only the use of force or physical abuse. A definition in line with the Convention against Torture would capture the common practice, on the part of the Chinese authorities, of resorting to inflicting severe mental anguish on individuals held in detention. It is alleged that there has been frequent documentation of such treatment against human rights defenders, lawyers, and other political activists through threats and punishment of their family members, including house arrest, harassment, and infringement of rights of the wives and children of Chen Guangcheng and Liu