A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 these Governments realized that the deletion of the reference to the Standard Minimum Rules would in fact open the door to an exemption of serious types of corporal punishment from the prohibition of torture, they tried to replace it by another limitation referring to binding international standards. The United States, for instance, proposed that lawful sanctions “imposed in flagrant disregard of accepted international standards” would not be permitted. As the drafters could not reach agreement on defining these “accepted international standards”, many Governments unsuccessfully tried to delete the lawful sanctions clause altogether. Others insisted in their written comments that the term “lawful sanctions” must be interpreted to refer both to domestic and international law. The Working Group deliberately did not include a similar clause in article 16 CAT, which prohibits other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.162 215. The extreme interpretation advocated by some Islamic States who maintained that any sanction imposed in accordance with domestic law, including corporal punishment, was covered by the lawful sanctions clause is in clear contradiction with general international human rights (and humanitarian) law as expressed, for instance, in the case law of the Human Rights Committee in relation to article 7 CCPR, which considers any form of corporal punishment as a violation of international law.163 Such interpretation would suggest that the CAT, which was adopted in 1984 with the clear object and purpose of strengthening the already existing State obligations to prevent and punish torture, in fact had lowered this international standard. Accordingly, such an interpretation is clearly incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and can, therefore, not be upheld in light of article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). In addition, the savings clause in article 1(2) CAT prevents such an interpretation. 216. Since assuming my mandate, I have sent several communications relating to corporal punishment to a certain number of countries. In fact, a review of these communications reveals that only a very limited number of countries seem to sustain this cruel and inhuman form of judicial sanctions. Another fact that can be observed from assessing my communications is, on the one hand, the incredible cruelty of some of the reported punishments, such as amputations of the right hand and the left food164 or flogging with 5000 lashes.165 On the other, many of the offences sanctioned with corporal punishment involved acts related to sexuality, such as “un-Islamic sexual activities”,166 “illicit relations”,167 or adultery.168 217. Adultery is also the offence most often quoted in cases where individuals are sentenced to death by stoning. In an urgent appeal sent to Somalia in 2008, it was alleged that a woman who had attempted to report that she had been raped was accused and convicted of adultery. She was reportedly sentenced to death by stoning; her hands and feet 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 58 Nowak and McArthur, 44 et seq. The Human Rights Committee has already in its General Comment 7/16 of 27 July 1982, para 2, expressed the unanimous opinion that the prohibition of article 7 CCPR “must extend to corporal punishment, including excessive chastisement as an educational or disciplinary measure”. Since the landmark decision of Osbourne v. Jamaica of March 2000 (No. 759/1997, para. 9.1), in which the Committee unanimously confirmed its “firm opinion” that “corporal punishment constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant”, this interpretation has developed into constant jurisprudence. Higginson v. Jamaica, No. 792/1998; Sooklal v. Trinidad and Tobago, No. 928/2000; Errol Pryce v. Jamaica, No. 793/1998; and cf. Nowak, CCPR-Commentary, 167 et seq. A/HRC/4/33/Add.1, para. 270. A/HRC/10/44/Add.4, para. 187. E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.1, para. 398. A/HRC/4/33/Add.1, para. 106. A/HRC/4/33/Add.1, para. 318.