to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish. The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article.” The Inter-american Regional System 3 This definition goes further than that of the UNCAT in that it does not require that the pain or suffering be ‘severe,’ makes reference to ‘any other purpose’ rather than ‘such purposes as’ (as in the UNCAT), and includes methods intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or diminish his capacities, independently of whether such methods cause pain or suffering. Like that in the UNCAT, the definition includes a material element and a purposive element, and, in Article 3 of the IACPPT (discussed in section 3.2.1), a qualified, active subject.446 The material element is the intentional infliction of pain or suffering, or of methods intended to obliterate the personality or the victim or diminish his capacities. In determining which acts constitute torture, the Commission and the Court have taken into account objective elements including the length of time for which the pain or suffering was inflicted, the method of producing pain, the purpose, the wider socio-political circumstances, and the arbitrariness or otherwise of deprivation of liberty, as well as subjective elements such as the age, sex or particular vulnerability of the victim.447 With respect to the intentionality of violations, the Court has stated that “Violations of the Convention cannot be founded upon rules that take psychological factors into account in establishing individual culpability. For the purposes of analysis, the intent or motivation of the agent who has violated the rights recognized by the Convention is irrelevant – the violation can be established even if the identity of the individual perpetrator is unknown. What is decisive is whether a violation of the rights recognized by the Convention has occurred with the support or the acquiescence of the government, or whether the State has allowed the act to For detailed discussion of these criteria, see Carlos Villán Durán, La Práctica de la Tortura y los Malos Tratos en el Mundo. Tendencias actuales, 2 Revista de Derechos Humanos, Cátedra UNESCO de Derechos Humanos 107, p. 113; Carlos Villán Durán, La Convención contra la Tortura y su Contribución a la Definición del Derecho a la Integridad Física y Moral en el Derecho Internacional, 2 Revista Española de Derecho Internacional pp. 386–398 (1985). 447 See, for example, Ximenes-Lopes v Brazil, IACHR (Series C) No. 149, judgement of 4 July 2006, §127. 446 96