A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 that unambiguously prohibits and sanctions torture. Article 4 CAT creates an obligation for States to establish a specific crime of torture, as defined in article 1 CAT, in its domestic criminal code. 141. It is important that States adequately define torture in their domestic criminal law. Such definition must cover all elements contained in article 1 CAT. The definition is to explicitly include psychological torture, which is by no means less severe than physical abuse. A limitation to physical torture would provide loopholes for the perpetrators and encourage them to resort to psychological torture. It is also important to reiterate that torture requires no bodily injuries. In the past, States have increasingly resorted to torture methods disguised as “enhanced interrogation techniques” that leave no physical traces and are thus more difficult for the victims to prove. 142. Moreover, the offence of torture is to include any act of ‘complicity or participation’ in torture. Article 4(1) CAT must be read in conjunction with the torture definition in article 1(1) including instigation, consent and acquiescence. Consequently, States have to criminalize the incitement, instigation, superior orders or instructions, consent, acquiescence and concealment of acts of torture. Superior officials who knew or should have known about torture practices of their personnel are guilty of complicity and/or acquiescence. The non-intervention of State officials in incidents where torture occurs, even in the private sphere, must also be punishable as an act of torture.81 Lastly, the attempt to commit torture should also be criminalized. As a consequence, superior orders to apply torture that are not followed are to be punished as a criminal offence.82 143. It was contested that the obligation to make torture a punishable offence under criminal law would require the establishment of a specific, separate offence.83 In practice, it is difficult if not impossible, to cover all the different aspects included in the definition of torture under article 1 CAT without explicitly incorporating this definition in the domestic criminal code. A clear definition of the crime of torture in accordance with article 1 CAT is needed to establish universal jurisdiction. The criminalization of torture in one provision is required to provide for legal certainty. It allows law enforcement officials to understand and apply clear rules and facilitates complaints for victims of torture. The CAT Committee has increasingly urged States to include an explicit definition of torture in their national criminal legislation.84 In order to avoid any problems of interpretation and implementation, the full verbatim incorporation of article 1 CAT is advisable. Of course, this does not apply to the ‘lawful sanctions’ clause in the last sentence of article 1(1) CAT. 144. In order to have a deterrent effect, the sentence for the offence of torture must be commensurate to the gravity of the crime. When torture is only met with disciplinary sanctions or minor sentences, it is an insufficient retribution for victims, but sends no deterrent message to potential perpetrators and creates no awareness among prosecutors and judges of the seriousness of the crime. Consequently, torture should be a crime similar to the ‘most serious offences under the domestic legal system’85 punishable with imprisonment of between six and twenty years.86 81 82 83 84 85 86 CAT Committee, Hajrizi Dzemajl et al. v. Yugoslavia, No. 161/2000, paras. 9.2, 10. See the case against the deputy police director Wofgang Daschner in Germany, Landgericht Frankfurt a.M., NJW 2005, 692. Burgers and Danelius, 129. CAT/C/SR.268, para. 2. See also Nowak and McArthur, 51–61. Burgers and Danelius, 129. Ingelse, The Committee Against Torture: One Step Forward, One Step Back, 18 NQHR 2000, 342; The CAT Committee has regularly deemed sentences of three years or less to be insufficient, CAT/C/SR.51, para. 31; CAT/C/SR.78, para. 4; CAT/C/SR.50, paras. 32, 39. 37