torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment Sweden’s Instrument of Government also prohibits torture. Under Chapter 2, Article 5 of the Instrument of Government, everyone shall be protected against corporal punishment. No one may be subjected to torture or medical intervention with the purpose of extorting or suppressing statements. Under the European Convention, the perpetrator does not need to be a public official or otherwise represent the public institutions in order for it to be possible to demonstrate a violation of the prohibition of torture (Article 3). This provision protects not just those who are deprived of their liberty because they are suspected or have been convicted of an offence, but also others such as patients receiving compulsory care. States have no opportunity to make derogations from the protections in Article 3, not even in time of war. Definitions Definitions of what constitutes torture are found in various documents. The definition in the Convention against Torture is the most comprehensive and is considered part of international common law. Article 1 of the convention states: “ [the term “torture” means] any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. ” What is encompassed by the term “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” cannot be inferred from the provisions of the Convention against Torture. That these acts are also prohibited is clear from Article 16 of the convention, which stipulates the following: “ Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in Article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity [...] ” The prohibition of torture is absolute and there is no situation in which derogations can be permitted. An assessment The UN Committee against Torture made an assessment of what might be contained within the term cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in its decision in the case Agiza v. Sweden (CAT/ C/34/D/233/2003). This decision referred to a decision by the then Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, Mats Melin. Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman Melin had stated that the treatment that two men had to endure – from the time they were stripped at the airport in Sweden until the time they landed in Egypt – must be characterised as degrading and that enforcement had been carried out in an inhuman and thus unacceptable manner. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman also questioned whether enforcement had not been carried out in a manner that constituted a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention (JO 2005/06 p. 101). The praxis that has developed in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is one of the most detailed sources of what is encompassed by the terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. As the European Convention is applicable as Swedish law, this legal praxis is of particular importance to Swedish conditions. 11