A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 211. This focus, however, does not mean that I consider the issue of corporal punishment against children in the home or in educational settings less important. On the contrary, I share the view of my predecessors, that any form of corporal punishment against children is contrary to the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and that “efforts must now be made to promote dialogue between generations and envisage positive, non-violent forms of discipline and punishment that are based on respect for the physical and psychological integrity of the child and his or her inherent dignity”.155 In addition, the relevant judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, including A v. The United Kingdom, which concluded that corporal punishment in the home constitutes degrading punishment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, must be borne in mind.156 Finally, I wish to reiterate the findings and recommendations drawn by Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, independent expert appointed by the Secretary-General pursuant to General-Assembly resolution 57/90 of 2002, in his study on violence against children157 and General Comment No. 8 (2006) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on the right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment.158 2. Corporal punishment as a judicial sanction 212. On occasion, some States have argued that any sanction imposed in accordance with domestic law, including the most severe forms of corporal punishment, was covered by the wording of the second sentence in article 1(1) CAT, the so-called lawful sanctions clause. 213. In this respect I want to draw the attention to the discussions that took place during the drafting of the UN Convention against Torture.159 Article 1 of the UN Declaration against Torture of 9 December 1975160 and article 1 of the draft submitted by Sweden on 18 January 1978161 served as basis for the debate on the definition of torture in the Working Groups. Both provisions included a clause on so-called lawful sanctions, which were exempted from the definition of torture, stating that “It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions to the extent consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners”. Thus, the application of any sanctions that should not fall under the definition of torture was linked to consistency, in particular with the Standard Minimum Rules, and in particular article 31 of these rules (“Corporal punishment, punishment by placing in a dark cell, and all cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments shall be completely prohibited as punishments for disciplinary offences”). 214. The lawful sanctions clause and the reference to an internationally non-binding instrument (the Standard Minimum Rules) was the subject of intense discussions during the Working Group’s 34th and 35th session. The reference to the Standard Minimum Rules was eventually deleted from article 1 CAT only on the ground that certain Governments did not wish to include a reference to a non-binding soft law instrument in a binding treaty. When 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 A/57/173, para. 47. A v. The United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, Reports 1998-VI, judgment of 23 September 1998, para. 21. A/61/299. CRC/C/GC/8. See Nowak and McArthur, Article 1. See also Burgers/Danelius, 121.For an overview of the relevant jurisprudence of international and regional human rights mechanisms on corporal punishment see A/60/316, paras. 19–25, and Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT)/Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), Torture in International Law. A guide to jurisprudence, 2008. GA Res. 3452 (XXX). E/CN.4/1285. 57