A/72/178 E. Extra-custodial interpretation of the prohibition 37. As the below examples illustrate, the jurisprudence of universal and regional oversight mechanisms confirms the applicability of the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to the extra -custodial use of force and provides guidance as to how the prohibition interrelates with the use of force principles. Committee against Torture 38. The Committee against Torture has repeatedly held that police brutality and excessive use of force outside the context of detention can fall within its pur view (for example, A/50/44, para. 126, CAT/C/VEN/CO/3-4, para. 12, CAT/C/TUR/CO/4, para. 15, and CAT/C/KOR/CO/3-5, para. 13). 47 In V.L. v. Switzerland, a case involving multiple rapes, the Committee noted that “the complainant was clearly under the physical control of the police even though the acts concerned were perpetrated outside formal detention facilities” (CAT/C/37/D/262/2005, annex, para. 8.10). It found that State agents had inflicted severe pain and suffering on her, for purposes such as interrogation, intimidation, punishment, humiliation and discrimination based on gender, and concluded that “the sexual abuse by the police in this case constitutes torture even though it was perpetrated outside formal detention facilities” (ibid.). Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 39. Similarly, in the case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights considered “that rape may constitute torture even when it consists of a single act or takes place outside State facilities … because the objective and subjective elements that define an act as torture do not refer to the accumulation of acts or to the place where the act is committed, but rather to the intention, the severity of the suffering and the purpose of the act”. 48 The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights also regarded as torture the intentional, violent beating of a person prior to arrest. 49 European Court of Human Rights 40. In Cestaro v. Italy and Bartesaghi Gallo and Others v. Italy, the European Court of Human Rights found that the violent punching, kicking and beating with rubber truncheons of antiglobalization protestors amounted to torture. The Court noted that although none of the victims showed violence or resistance, and although all of them were manifestly unarmed, asleep or sitting with their hands raised above their heads, the police systematically and indiscri minately subjected each of them to violent beatings, intentionally inflicting severe physical and psychological suffering for purposes of retaliation and humiliation through the use of excessive, indiscriminate and manifestly disproportionate force. 50 __________________ 47 48 49 50 17-12326 See also Nowak and McArthur, The United Nations Convention against Torture: a Commentary, pp. 567-568. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, Judgment of 31 August 2010, para. 118. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, “Gayle v. Jamaica, Merits”, paras. 59-64. European Court of Human Rights, Cestaro v. Italy (application No. 6884/11), Judgment of 7 April 2015, paras. 170-190; and Bartesaghi Gallo and Others v. Italy (application Nos. 12131/13 and 43390/13), Judgment of 22 June 2017, paras. 114 and 117. 15/24