The UN Human Rights Committee stated that the aim of Article 7, ICCPR is “to protect both the dignity and the physical and mental integrity of the individual […] the prohibition in article 7 relates not only to acts that cause physical pain but also to acts that cause mental suffering to the victim”.336 Deliberately cruel acts may also amount to inhuman treatment, even when a person is not in custody. Therefore, according to the European Court and in the context of counter-terrorism, it was inhuman of the security forces to destroy the applicants’ homes. 337 This constituted an act of violence and deliberate destruction in disregard for the safety and welfare of the applicants, who were left without shelter and in circumstances that caused anguish and suffering. When an individual is in custody the threshold for inhuman treatment is lowered. For example, the European Court has held that an applicant’s injuries, although relatively slight, nevertheless constituted outward signs of the use of physical force on an individual deprived of his liberty and therefore in a state of inferiority. As such, the treatment had been both inhuman and degrading.338 Definition of degrading Although degrading treatment is not specifically defined in the conventions, it includes all ill-treatment that may not reach the level of “inhuman”. For example, it may include various measures designed to break the physical or moral resistance of the victim. Its objective may be to humiliate and debase the person concerned. Some instances of degrading treatment can be less clear. For example, handcuffing of prisoners with terminal illnesses to a hospital bed may be degrading, 339 while handcuffing in general does not reach the minimum level of severity necessary to amount to degrading treatment.340 Issues arising under protection from torture relevant to counter-terrorism strategies The CAT Committee on 22 November 2001 issued a general statement referring to the events of 11 September 2001 and their aftermath, which reminded states parties to the Convention 336 HRC, General Comment No. 20 (Replaces General Comment No. 7) concerning prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment (Art. 7), 10 March 1992, paras. 2 and 5. 337 ECtHR, Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey, Case no. 12/1997/796/998-999, 24 April 1998, paras. 72-80; ECtHR, Bilgin v. Turkey, Application no. 23819/94, 16 November 2000, paras. 97-104; ECtHR, Dulaş v. Turkey, Application no. 25801/94, 30 January 2001, paras. 49-56. 338 ECtHR, Tomasi v. France, Application no. 12850/87, 27 August 1992, paras. 112-116 (the Court also stated that “the requirements of the investigation and the undeniable difficulties inherent in the fight against crime, particularly with regard to terrorism, cannot result in limits being placed on the protection to be afforded in respect of the physical integrity of individuals”, para. 115). 339 ECtHR, Hénaf v. France, Application no. 65436/01, 27 November 2003, paras 47-60. 340 “[…] Handcuffing does not normally give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention where the measure has been imposed in connection with lawful arrest or detention and does not entail use of force, or public exposure, exceeding what is reasonably considered necessary in the circumstances. In this regard, it is of importance for instance whether there is reason to believe that the person concerned would resist arrest or abscond, cause injury or damage or suppress evidence”, ECtHR, Raninen v. Finland, Case no. 152/1996/771/972, 16 December 1997, para. 56 and more generally 52-59. Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights 123