96 Human Rights in Counter-Terrorism Investigations X’s treatment required a certain amount of preparation and exertion, and could, therefore, have only been inflicted intentionally by the police. This treatment caused severe pain, and medical reports indicate that it led to the paralysis in X’s arms. Furthermore, it was administered in order to obtain information from X . In these circumstances, this treatment amounted to torture. * This case study is taken from the facts in Aksoy v. Turkey, and the analysis of the question on the findings of the ECtHR in that case.113 In terrorism cases in particular, the police may be under great pressure, both from their senior officers and government ministers, but also from the media and the public, to obtain information or confessions quickly. This may increase the likelihood that torture and ill-treatment will take place. The risk is even greater if the legal system bases convictions solely or substantially on confessions and on evidence obtained in police custody or pre-trial detention, particularly if questioning is conducted in the absence of a detainee’s lawyer. It is the obligation of the police to resist this pressure and to carry out their duties in an independent and objective fashion, with an open mind at every stage of the investigation, even when questioning suspects against whom evidence may be strong. Every criminal investigation should be an open-minded search for the truth. When police forget this, the risk of a mistake and miscarriage of justice is great. 113 The three components defining torture are: • the severity of the pain inflicted; • the purpose of the treatment; and • the fact that torture is inflicted by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a person acting in an official capacity.114 A distinction exists between torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. They are all inflicted by a person acting in an official capacity. However, torture is used for the particular purpose of gathering 113 ECtHR, Aksoy v. Turkey, Application No 21987/93, 18 December 1996, <http://hudoc.echr. coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001–58003>. 114 CAT, Article 1, op. cit., note 12.