Article 1. Definition of Torture 63 3.2 Is There a State Obligation Emanating Out of Article 1? 133  Article 1 contains a legal definition of torture, which needs to be applied in conjunction with State obligations applicable to torture. The CAT lacks a general provision prohibiting torture or granting an individual human right not to be subjected to torture and other forms of ill-​treatment, similar to Article 7 CCPR, Article 3 ECHR, Article 5 ACHR, or Article 5 ACHPR.237 The CAT seems to presuppose such a human right as part of customary international law. As spelt out in the Preamble, the States parties to the CAT, ‘desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world’, merely intended to establish additional and specific State obligations to prevent torture and ill-​treatment as well as to punish torture.238 134 Because of the lack of a provision prohibiting torture in Article 1, it has previously—​and rightly—​been argued that Article 1 does not contain a specific State obligation and that an individual wishing to complain against having been subjected to torture, must prove that the State party concerned has failed to ‘take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction’, as spelt out in Article 2(1).239 In the meantime, the Committee has repeatedly found violations of Article 1 in the indvidual complaints procedure.240 There are still a few cases where the Committee found a violation of Article 2(1) read in conjunction with Article 1, but not of Article 1.241 In other cases, the Committee found a violation of Article 1 and not of Article 2.242 135  Not only are there obviously inconsistencies in the Committee’s jurisprudence, but from a legal perspective it is also not understandable how a legal definition is interpreted in a way so as to constitute an obligation. This means that legally it is not possible to find a violation of a provision that is nothing but a definition. Thus the correct way would be, as was also recently confirmed by the Committee, to find a violation of Article 2 (1) in conjunction with Article 1.243 237   art 1 of the Inter-​American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (adopted 9 December 1985, entered into force 28 February 1987) OAS Treaty Series No 67 (IAPPT), which contains a general State obligation to prevent and punish torture. 238   Manfred Nowak and Elizabeth McArthur, The UNCAT: A Commentary (Oxford University Press 2008) para 82. See above Preamble. 239   Nowak and McArthur (n 238) para. 82. 240   Ali Ben Salem v Tunisia, No 269/​2005 (n 126)  para 16.5; Dmytro Slyusar v Ukraine, No 353/​2008, UN Doc CAT/​C/​47/​D/​353/​2008, 14 November 2011, para 9.4; Gerasimov v Kazakhstan, No 433/​2010 (n 122) para 13; Djamila Bendib v Algeria, No 376/​2009, UN Doc CAT/​C/​51/​D/​376/​2009, 8 November 2013, paras 6.2, 6.3; Boniface Ntikarahera v Burundi, No 503/​2012 (n 126) para 7; Nouar Abdelmalek v Algeria, No 402/​2009, UN Doc CAT/​C/​52/​D/​402/​2009, 23 May 2014, para 11.2; Rasim Bairamov v Kazakhstan, No 497/​2012, UN Doc CAT/​C/​52/​D/​497/​2012, 14 May 2014, para 8.4; Ramiro Ramírez Martínez et al v Mexico, No 500/​2012 (n 121) para 17.4; X v Burundi, No 553/​2013 (n 201) para 7.2; Patrice Gahungu v Burundi, No 522/​2012 (n 106) paras 7.2–​7.4; Taoufik Elaïba v Tunisia, No 551/​2013, UN Doc CAT/​C/​57/​D/​551/​2013, 6 May 2016, para 7.4; EN v Burundi, No 578/​2013 (n 106) paras 7.3, 7.4. 241   Déogratias Niyonzima v Burundi, No 514/​2012 (n 105) para 8.2; Hernández Colmenarez and Guerrero Sánchez v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No 456/​2011 (n 152) paras 6.6, 7. 242   Ali Ben Salem v Tunisia, No 269/​2005 (n 126) para 16.5; Saadia Ali v Tunisia, No 291/​2006, UN Doc CAT/​C/​41/​D/​291/​2006, 21 November 2008, paras 15.4, 15.5. 243   Informal consultation with the CAT Committee, 21 November 2017. Zach