CCPR/C/115/D/2077/2011 3.4 Further, the author submits that the alleged acts were intentionally inflicted and involved both physical and mental suffering,6 that those acts were committed by public officials for whom the State bears responsibility and that the purpose of the offences is to be understood in the context of common and widespread intimidating practices towards the population carried out by the police in a general framework of impunity.7 The author also recalls the jurisprudence of the Committee, which has considered acts of violence committed by prison guards, such as beating with batons, as amounting to violations of article 7 of the Covenant.8 Citing a former Special Rapporteur on torture who analysed the travaux préparatoires of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the author argues that the decisive criteria for distinguishing torture from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment should be understood to be the purpose of the conduct and the powerlessness of the victim, rather than the intensity of the pain or suffering inflicted.9 As for the purpose of the conduct, he contends that he the offences to which he was subjected were perpetrated in a sadistic exercise of power and with the clear intention to intimidate him. As regards the powerlessness criteria, the author submits that the repeated death threats he received from the police during his detention made him feel completely lost and without hope. Those feelings were compounded by the fact that nobody knew where he was or what was happening, as he was not allowed to call anyone. In addition, the guards were drunk and without inhibition or restraint. In Nepal, police abuses are publicly known and the sense of defencelessness and debasement of the victims is even stronger. As a consequence, the treatment to which Mr. S. was subjected corresponds to breaches of article 7 of the Covenant and must be deemed to amount to torture. 3.5 The author claims that article 9 (1), (2) and (5) of the Covenant has been violated insofar as he was arrested without a warrant or justification; the arrest was unpredictable and inappropriate and arbitrary under any point of view; and he was not notified of the reasons for his arrest or of the charges against him. The author points out that by placing him in detention with potential criminals, which added to his uncertainty and fear, the police increased his risk of being subjected to other ill-treatment and torture. In addition, he was not able to request, and has not received, reparation for his arbitrary arrest and detention. Indeed, the monetary compensation he received did not encompass his unlawful detention, but was awarded to him as compensation for his ill-treatment during detention. 3.6 According to the author, he was also the victim of a violation of his right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person during his detention, in breach of article 10 (1) of the Covenant. The author also refers to the fact that he was denied medical treatment for his injuries, despite the explicit request of the doctor for such treatment, had no facilities for sleeping, and was detained with about 20 6 7 8 9 The physical injuries caused by the beating were documented by three doctors. The injuries were so severe that they prevented the author from performing his job, which he was forced to leave. The psychological injuries have had equally lasting consequences: five years after the arrest, Mr. S. still suffers from chronic fear and requires therapy. The author points out that the Committee against Torture has underlined the prevailing climate of impunity for acts of torture and ill-treatment (see CAT/C/NPL/CO/2). He also refers to reports of the Special Rapporteur against Torture, who pointed out that, in Nepal, impunity for acts of torture was the rule, and consequently victims of torture and their families were left without recourse to adequate justice, compensation and rehabilitation (see E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.5). See communications No. 798/1998, Howell v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 21 October 2003, para. 6.2; and No. 868/1999, Wilson v. the Philippines, Views adopted on 30 October 2003, para. 7.3. Manfred Nowak and Elizabeth McArthur, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Commentary, Oxford Commentaries on International Law (New York, Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 75. 7