Article 1. Definition of Torture 55 ‘gratuitous torture’ and to delete discrimination as a specific purpose. While most delegations agreed that the list of purposes in Article 1 is meant to be indicative rather than exhaustive, the US proposal that any purposes or motives regardless of whether or not they were mentioned in Article 1 would suffice was not adopted by the General Assembly. 108  Article 2 ACHR has a wider application by adding the words ‘or for any other purpose’. A  similar proposal to add such a clause to the definition in the 1975 UN Declaration had been defeated,180 and these words are also missing in Article 1 CAT despite efforts of the US and other delegations to broaden the definition. A grammatical interpretation as well as the travaux preparatoires, therefore, lead to the conclusion that the words ‘for such purposes as’ must be understood in a narrow sense. Not every purpose is sufficient but only a purpose which has ‘something in common with the purposes expressly listed’.181 109 What is the common denominator of the purposes listed in Article 1? They include –​ extracting a confession –​ obtaining from the victim or a third person information; –​ punishment; –​ intimidation and coercion; –​ discrimination. 110  In its Concluding Observations, the Committee has repeatedly asked States parties to make sure their national legislation is in line with the Convention’s Article 1. The Committee criticized eg the Chinese legislation, as it does not include any other purposes than extracting confessions.182 In relation to several States parties, the Committee expressed its concern, that the purpose of discrimination was not included in the definition of torture183 or that the Criminal Code included a list of specific discrimination grounds (political views, sexual orientation) but not ‘any reason based on discrimination of any kind’.184 111 As Burgers and Danelius rightly observe, the purposes listed in Article 1 are not necessarily illegitimate, but are directly linked to ‘the interests or policies of the State and its organs’.185 While the purpose of the perpetrator needs be linked to the purposes listed, the SRT has also argued that the relatively broad phrasing of the listed purposes means that ‘it is difficult to envisage a realistic scenario of purposeful ill-​treatment against a powerless person’186 which would not be encompassed by the definition of Article 1, if severe pain or suffering is inflicted. 112  In the individual complaints procedure, the Committee normally makes sure to indicate which of the purposes in Article 1 it deems to be fulfilled. In the case Patrice Gahungu v.  Burundi, the Committee concluded that the treatment inflicted was ‘probably aimed at forcing a confession from him’187 and consequently found 181   Boulesbaa (n 30) 22 with further references.   Burgers and Danelius (n 32) 118.   CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: China (2016) UN Doc CAT/​C/​CHN/​CO/​5, para 7b. 183  CAT, ‘Concluding Observations:  Azerbaijan’ (2009) UN Doc CAT/​ C/​ AZE/​ CO/​ 3, para 8; CAT, ‘Concluding Observations:  Cabo Verde’ (2017) UN Doc CAT/​C/​CPV/​CO/​1, para 10; CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: Portugal’ (2013) UN Doc CAT/​C/​PRT/​CO/​5-​6, para 7. 184   CAT, ‘Concluding Observations: Norway’ (2012) UN Doc CAT/​C/​NOR/​CO/​6-​7, para 7. 185 186   ibid 119; see also Ingelse (n 90) 211.   A/​72/​178 (n 99) para 31. 187   Patrice Gahungu v Burundi, No 522/​2012 (n 106) para 7.2. 180 182 Zach