any form of physical or mental pressure or coercion constitutes at least cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.36 UN TREATY BODIES 1 One common element of the definitions of torture and other forms of ill-treatment under the UNCAT is that all must involve a public official or someone acting in an official capacity (a requirement discussed in detail in section 1.2.1 below). However, for the purposes of the UNCAT, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment may “not amount to torture” either because it does not have the same purposes as torture, or because it is not intentional, or perhaps because the pain and suffering is not “severe” within the meaning of Article 1. It is therefore instructive to analyse these aspects of the definition of torture in Article 1 in more detail. 1.1.2.1 “Intentional” infliction of “severe pain or suffering” The UNCAT definition of torture covers not only positive acts, but also omissions.37 Many authors have concluded that recklessness, but not negligence, would suffice for the intention element. However, it appears that at least one member of the CAT disagrees. In the 2007 discussion of the report of Denmark, Mr. Grossman asked the delegation to corroborate his understanding that negligence was excluded as a basis for charges to be brought under the Danish Military Criminal Code in the case of torture, and asked for an explanation of the rationale behind its exclusion since negligence was otherwise “a well-established subjective component of criminal liability.”38 It is not yet clear to what extent other members of the CAT agree with this analysis. Assessing the severity of physical or mental pain or suffering includes a subjective element. Where the State agent inflicting pain or suffering or acquiescing in its infliction is aware that the victim is particularly sensitive, it is possible that acts which would not otherwise reach the threshold of severity to constitute torture may do so.39 It should be remembered that purely mental torture Ibid. See Nigel Rodley and Matt Pollard, “Criminalisation of Torture: State Obligations under the United Nations Convention against Torture” [2006] E.H.R.L.R No.2, p. 115, at p. 120.See also, for example, CAT, Concluding Observations on Chile, UN Doc. CAT/C/CR/32/5 (14 June 2004), §§6(j) and 7(m), where the Committee recommended that Chile eliminate the practice of refusing to provide emergency medical care to women suffering complications from illegal abortions, unless the women confessed to information about those who performed the abortions. 38 Discussion of Denmark, CAT, Summary record of the 757th meeting, UN Doc. CAT/C/SR.757 (8 May 2007), §35. 39 This was implied in Dzemajl and Others v Yugoslavia, CAT Communication No. 161/2000, 21 November 2002, §9.2. 36 37 12