A/67/44 of the State party that the draft National Action Plan on Human Rights contains a section devoted to the protection of Sri Lankan migrant workers (arts. 2, 12 and 16). The State party should: (a) Increase its efforts to combat trafficking in human beings by taking effective measures to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible and by further strengthening international cooperation with countries of origin, transit and destination; (b) Review legislation and practices to prevent victims of trafficking from being prosecuted, detained or punished for the illegality of their entry or residence or for the activities they are involved in as a direct consequence of their situation as victims of trafficking; (c) Instruct consular or diplomatic authorities to provide protection and assistance to Sri Lankan migrant workers to protect their rights to be free from violence, confinement and abuse in violation of the Convention; (d) Consider the possibility of ratifying the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children and the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Definition of torture (25) The Committee reiterates its view that the definition of torture included in Section 12 of the 1994 Convention against Torture Act (hereinafter, CAT Act) does not entirely reflect the internationally agreed definition set out in the Convention. It restricts acts of torture to “any act which causes severe pain, whether physical or mental”, while the Convention definition refers to “severe pain or suffering”. It thus does not cover acts that are not violent per se, but nevertheless inflict suffering (arts. 1 and 4). The Committee reiterates the recommendation made in its previous concluding observations (CAT/C/LKA/CO/2, para. 5), that the State party should amend the definition of torture included in Section 12 of the CAT Act in order to expand the definition of torture to all acts of torture, including those causing severe suffering, in accordance with article 1 of the Convention. In this regard, the Committee draws attention to its general comment No. 2 (2007), which states that serious discrepancies between the Convention’s definition and that incorporated into domestic law create actual or potential loopholes for impunity (CAT/C/GC/2, para. 9). Jurisdiction over acts of torture (26) While noting the information provided by the State party on the implementation of articles 5 to 8 of the Convention, the Committee regrets the lack of clarity on the existence of the necessary measures establishing the State party’s jurisdiction over acts of torture. While the 1994 CAT Act provides for jurisdiction over alleged perpetrators of torture present in the territory of the State party, whether or not citizens, it is unclear whether the law provides for the establishment of universal jurisdiction or whether this remains at the discretion of the High Court, as implied in Section 4(2) CAT Act. Furthermore, Section 7 CAT Act appears to require the rejection of an extradition request before the requirement that the case be submitted to the relevant authorities. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence on the content of the obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere, aut judicare), that the State party’s obligation to prosecute the alleged perpetrator of acts of torture does not depend on the prior existence of a request for extradition (arts. 5, 6, 7 and 8). 94 GE.12-44492