A/60/316 imposition of such punishments should cease immediately, and that all laws and decrees providing for their imposition should be revoked without delay.8 In its concluding observations on the Sudan it stated that flogging, amputation and stoning, which are recognized as penalties for criminal offences, are not compatible with the Covenant.9 Concerning the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Human Rights Committee stated that flogging, which is recognized as a penalty for criminal offences, is incompatible with article 7 of the Covenant; that the imposition of such punishment should cease immediately; that all laws and regulations providing for its imposition should be repealed without delay; and that amputation should be formally abolished.10 22. In 1995, the Committee against Torture expressed the view that corporal punishment in Jordan could constitute a violation of the Convention.11 In 1997, after considering the State party report of Namibia, the Committee against Torture recommended that the Government bring about “the prompt abolition of corporal punishment insofar as it is legally still possible under the Prisons Act of 1959 and the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977”.12 In 2001, in relation to Zambia, a member of the Committee stated that corporal punishment, regardless of whether the cane was three feet or four feet long was a clear violation of article 16 of the Convention.13 In 2002, the Committee noted in its conclusions and recommendations on Saudi Arabia, that while sharia expressly prohibits torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment, domestic law itself does not explicitly reflect this prohibition, nor does it impose criminal sanctions.14 The Committee considered that the express incorporation in the State party’s domestic law of the crime of torture, as defined in article 1 of the Convention, was necessary to signal the cardinal importance of this prohibition, and that the sentencing to, and imposition of, corporal punishments by judicial and administrative authorities, including, in particular, flogging and amputation of limbs, are not in conformity with the Convention.15 Concerning the report of Yemen, the Committee expressed the view that criminal sanctions, in particular flogging and amputation of limbs, may be in breach of the Convention.16 23. In considering the report of Saudi Arabia, the Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed concern that persons under 18 may be subject to flogging under article 28 of the 1977 Detention and Imprisonment Regulations, as well as sentenced under criminal law to flogging, stoning, and amputations for crimes committed when they were under 18.17 Similarly, the Committee noted that under article 49 of the Penal Law of the Islamic Republic of Iran, persons who committed crimes when they were under 18 could be subjected to amputation, flogging and stoning, which are systematically imposed by the judicial authorities.18 In both cases, the Committee found such measures were incompatible with the Convention. That in Yemen corporal punishment, including flogging, is still lawful as a sentence was of deep concern to the Committee, which recommended that the State explicitly prohibit all forms of corporal punishment.19 B. Regional human rights mechanisms 24. In Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, involving the birching of a juvenile as a traditional punishment, the European Court of Human Rights held that this amounted to degrading punishment within the meaning of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore was prohibited.20 The Court, in A v. the 7