The CAT has elaborated a non-exhaustive list of information which may be pertinent when an individual communication is being presented before the Committee concerning a possible violation of Article 3101: • Any evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights in the State concerned; • Previous torture or maltreatment by or at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in a public capacity; in particular, whether this was in the recent past; medical or other independent evidence to support the claim, such as after-effects; • Changes in the internal situation of human rights; • Political or other activities of the individual within or outside the State concerned which would make the individual particularly vulnerable to the risk of being placed in danger of torture, were he or she expelled, returned, or extradited to the State in question; • Credibility of the author; factual inconsistencies and their relevance. Article 4 1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature. Features: Definition as crime (criminalisation), appropriate punishment Interpretation § 1. Article 4 provides that States Parties must ensure that all forms of torture are punishable offences under their criminal law. The same applies to attempted torture and to any act which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. This is also deemed to include giving an order to perpetrate torture.102 Article 4 is inspired by similar articles in conventions concerning hijacking, sabotage against aircraft, attacks on diplomats, and taking of hostages.103 II. INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS OF ARTICLES 1–16 OF THE CONVENTION 2. ANALYSIS OF SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS The Committee’s finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention does not affect the decision(s) of the competent national authorities concerning the granting or refusal of asylum. The finding of a violation of Article 3 has a declaratory character. On the other hand, the State does have a responsibility to find solutions that will enable it to take all necessary measures to comply with the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention. These solutions may be of a legal nature (e.g. decision to admit the applicant temporarily), but also of a political nature (e.g. action to find a third State willing to admit the applicant to its territory and undertaking not to return or expel him or her in its turn). 35