A/72/178 applicants from a real and immediate risk of ill-treatment at the hands of an abusive family member. 59 IV. Application of the prohibition to the extra-custodial use of force A. Extra-custodial use of force as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 46. Case law thus suggests that the criteria determining whether the extra -custodial use of force amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are closely aligned with the use of force principles. In principle, any use of force by State agents exceeding what is necessary and proportionate in the circumstances to achieve a lawful purpose is regarded as an attack on human dignity amounting to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of whether that excess occurred intentionally or inadvertently. The precise characterization of the relevant ill-treatment as cruel, inhuman, degrading or a combination thereof will depend on the particular characteristics and circumstances of the case but cannot prevent the unlawfulness of the act. Moreover, failure to take all precautions practically possible in the planning, preparation and conduct of law enforcement operations increases the risk of unnecessary or disproportionate force being used and, in principle, breaches the State’s obligation to prevent cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 60 B. Extra-custodial use of force as aggravated cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or torture 47. The legal equation changes fundamentally when it comes to intentional and purposeful infliction of pain or suffering on a powerless person. Intentionality and purposefulness involve the deliberate instrumentalization of the pain or suffering inflicted on a powerless person as a vehicle for achieving a particular purpose (for example, coercion, intimidation, punishment, discrimination or sadistic gratification), as opposed to the infliction of pain and suffering as an inevitable side effect of an act pursuing a different purpose (for example, a medical intervention, effecting an arrest or repelling an attack). Powerlessness means that the victim is under the direct physical or equivalent control of the perpetrator and has lost the capacity to resist or escape the infliction of pain or suffering. In such circumstances, there can be no justification for the intentional and purposeful infliction of pain or suffering, regardless of whether, under the relevant treaty definition, it qualifies as torture or “other” cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In the view of the Special Rapporteur, the deliberate instrumentalization of pain or suffering, in conjunction with the powerlessness of the victim, are the very essence of torture and of the fundamental attack on human dignity it represents. Thus, notwithstanding any additional elements that may be required for a formal qualification as “torture” under the applicable treaty definition, any extra-custodial use of force that involves the intentional and purposeful infliction of pain or suffering on a powerless person as a vehicle for achieving a particular purpose will always amount to an aggravated form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of __________________ 59 60 17-12326 European Court of Human Rights, Opuz v. Turkey (application No. 33401/02), Judgment of 9 June 2009. On positive obligations, see Association for the Prevention of Torture and Centre for Justice and International Law, Torture in International Law. 17/24