OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on Article 235 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan gravity of the offence. Reference to “correctional work” should consequently be deleted from this provision. 39. To assess whether certain penalties are appropriate given the special gravity of the crime of torture, it may prove useful to conduct a comparative review of other provisions of the Criminal Code. It seems that similar punishments (ranging from correctional work to eight years of imprisonment in case of aggravating circumstances) are provided for in cases of criminal offenses of medium gravity, e.g. intentional infliction of medium bodily injury. Given that torture and cruel and degrading treatment are significantly more serious, both in terms of purpose, and in terms of effect, it is unlikely that up to three years’ of imprisonment, or up to eight years in aggravated cases, would be considered as constituting an “appropriate sanction”.54 The drafters are encouraged to review Article 235, and to provide a penalty that is commensurate with, and demonstrates the gravity and significance of the offence of torture. Thought may be given to providing minimum sentences as it is done in the Criminal Code for other grave criminal offences such as terrorism, as well as in torture provisions from certain other countries.55 This will help ensure that potential perpetrators, victims and the public are aware of the special gravity of the crime of torture and that the punishment is in proportion to the crime.56 [END OF TEXT] 54 55 56 See e.g. par 8 of the Concluding observations of the UNCAT Committee on Burkina Faso, CAT/C/BFA/CO/1, 2 January 2014, available at http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CAT%2fC%2fBFA%2fCO%2f1&Lan g=en where the acts of torture were carrying the penalties prescribed, among other things, for malicious wounding, assault and battery or causing bodily harm or injury, which was considered as not taking into account the grave nature of acts of torture. See also par 8 of the Concluding observations of the UNCAT Committee on Estonia, CAT/C/EST/CO/5, 17 June 2013, available at http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CAT%2fC%2fEST%2fCO%2f5&Lan g=en where the Committee compared the penalties for torture and those for trafficking in human beings. As regards sentencing in cases of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, see e.g. pages 40-43 of 2013 APT Report on Key Issues in Drafting Anti-Torture Legislation. See also op. cit. footnote 50, page 19 (2008 APT-CEJIL Joint Guide to Jurisprudence on Torture in International Law). Additionally, see the Comparative Research for the Northern Ireland Assembly on Sentencing Guidelines Mechanisms by Fiona O’Connell (2011) available at http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Documents/RaISe/Publications/2011/Justice/6611.pdf. For an overview of anti-torture legislation, see http://www.apt.ch/en/compilation-of-torture-laws/ (to be read together with relevant UNCAT Concluding Observations). See in the context of international criminal law Ashley Joy Stein, Reforming the Sentencing Regime for the Most Serious Crimes of Concern: The International Criminal Court through the Lens of the Lubanga Trial, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, Vol. 39 (2014), page 558, available at http://www.brooklaw.edu/~/media/PDF/LawJournals/BJI_PDF/bji_vol39i.ashx. 14