UN TREATY BODIES 1 than by reference to conditions of detention that affected all inmates equally.”26 The HRC therefore concluded that there had been no violation of Article 7.27 In contrast, in Mukong v Cameroon, the fact that the author was “singled out for exceptionally harsh and degrading treatment,” including being “detained incommunicado,… threatened with torture and death and intimidated, deprived of food, and kept locked in his cell for several days on end without the possibility of recreation” led the Committee to find a violation of Article 7.28 It may be argued that a violation of Article 7 in respect of a person deprived of liberty automatically entails a violation of Article 10(1). In Linton v Jamaica, for example, the Committee considered that “The physical abuse inflicted on the author…, the mock execution set up by prison warders and the denial of adequate medical care after the injuries sustained in the aborted escape attempt… constitute cruel and inhuman treatment within the meaning of article 7 and, therefore, also entail a violation of article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.”29 While general trends may be detected from the jurisprudence, there remains considerable overlap in the Committee’s application of Articles 7 and 10(1). In some cases, general conditions of detention have been so severe that they have reached the threshold of severity for a violation of Article 7, and in others, breaches of Article 10(1) have been found in cases of specific attacks.30 1.1.2 The UNCAT and the Committee against Torture In 1984, for the purposes of describing specific measures against torture, the UNCAT included a definition of torture: “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 Pinto v Trinidad and Tobago, HRC Communication No. 512/1992, 16 July 1996, §8.3. The HRC made no finding of fact on the conditions of detention in the case. 27 The Committee did not specifically rule on whether the conditions in the case amounted to a violation of Article 10(1), although a violation of this provision was found in respect of other allegations. Ibid. 28 Mukong v Cameroon, HRC Communication No. 458/1991, 21 July 1994, §9.4. 29 Linton v Jamaica, HRC Communication No. 255/1987, 22 October 1992, §8.5. See also Bailey v Jamaica, HRC Communication No. 334/1988, 31 March 1993, §9.3: “In the Committee’s opinion, the fact that Mr. Bailey was beaten repeatedly with clubs, iron pipes and batons, and then left without any medical attention in spite of injuries to head and hands, amounts to cruel and inhuman treatment within the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant and also entails a violation of article 10, paragraph 1.” 30 See, for example, Walker and Richards v Jamaica, HRC Communication No. 639/1995, 28 July 1997. In this case, no violation of Article 7 was alleged by the complainant in respect of the beating. 26 10