A/HRC/43/49 16. The Special Rapporteur has conducted extensive research and stakeholder consultations, including through an open call for contributions by questionnaire. 13 The present report reflects the resulting conclusions and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur. Given the substantive scope and complexity of the topic and the applicable constraints in terms of time and word-count, he examines the notion of psychological “torture” only. As, in practice, “torture” and “other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” are often closely interlinked, further research efforts should be undertaken to clarify the broader topic of psychological ill-treatment. B. Concept of psychological torture 1. Working definition 17. “Psychological torture” is not a technical term in international law, but has been used in various disciplines, including legal, medical, psychological, ethical, philosophical, historical and sociological, for different purposes and with varying interpretations. The Special Rapporteur acknowledges that all these understandings have their own legitimacy, validity and purpose in their respective fields. In line with the mandate bestowed upon him, in the present report he examines the concept of “psychological torture” from the perspective of international human rights law. 18. According to article 1 of the Convention against Torture, the substantive concept of “torture” comprises, most notably, the intentional and purposeful infliction of severe pain or suffering “whether physical or mental”. It is this explicit juxtaposition of “mental” and “physical” pain or suffering which is generally referred to as the legal basis for the concept of psychological torture. Accordingly, in human rights law, “psychological” torture is most commonly understood as referring to the infliction of “mental” pain or suffering, whereas “physical” torture is generally associated with the infliction of “physical” pain or suffering.14 19. In line with this position, shared by previous mandate holders (E/CN.4/1986/15, para. 118), the Special Rapporteur is of the view that, under human rights law, “psychological torture” should be interpreted to include all methods, techniques and circumstances which are intended or designed to purposefully inflict severe mental pain or suffering without using the conduit or effect of severe physical pain or suffering. The Special Rapporteur is further of the view that “physical torture” should be interpreted to include all methods, techniques and environments intended or designed to purposefully inflict severe physical pain or suffering, regardless of the parallel infliction of mental pain or suffering. Distinguishing “methods” from “effects” and “rationales” 2. 20. Although the proposed distinction between “physical” and “psychological” methods of torture appears fairly straightforward and to flow directly from the text of the Convention, its consistent and coherent application is subject to a number of caveats arising from the fact that the broader discussion of the psychological dimension of torture can be divided into at least three parallel and equally important strands, which relate to the psychological methods (i.e., techniques), psychological effects (i.e., sequelae) and psychological rationale (i.e., target) of torture. 21. First, the distinction between psychological and physical methods of torture should not obscure the fact that, as a matter of law, “torture” is a unified concept. All methods of torture are subject to the same prohibition and give rise to the same legal obligations, regardless of whether the inflicted pain or suffering is of a “physical” or “mental” character, or a combination thereof. Thus, the aim of the distinction between “psychological” and “physical” methods of torture is not to suggest any difference in terms of legal implications 13 14 6 See www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Torture/Call/QuestionnairePsychologicalTorture.docx. Luban and Shue, “Mental torture”.