A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 sensitivity for the overall issue. In my own country, Austria, despite repeated criticism by legal scholars and the CAT Committee43, the Government has failed to implement article 4 CAT by inserting a special provision on torture into the Criminal Code, as defined in article 1 CAT. Instead, the Government relies on other provisions in the Criminal Code which, however, miss the specific elements of purpose and intent and which do not provide for sanctions that would take into account the particular gravity of the crime. 74. Very frequently, national criminal codes contain provisions outlawing several offences which are similar but nevertheless not equal to torture, such as the infliction of bodily injuries, battery, duress, or wilful violence, etc. While all these offences may form part of a type of torture, none of them is sufficient to cover all the elements contained in the definition of article 1 and therefore fall short of providing an equally comprehensive protection of physical and psychological integrity. The definition of torture often relates to the infliction of injuries.44 Time and again, my counterparts were surprised when I emphasized that the definition of torture does not require any bodily injuries, let alone any lasting impairment. The particular evil of torture is the deliberate infliction of severe pain or suffering on a powerless person, and not the infliction of injuries. Injuries can be an aggravating factor,45 but it is impermissible to reduce torture to such a concept. Many methods of torture, such as waterboarding or asphyxiation with plastic bags do not lead to any injuries. 75. Furthermore, the insistence on injuries is particularly worrying, since more and more of the torture methods applied are designed not to leave any traces. Survivors of such practices find it much more difficult to obtain recognition of their suffering and to initiate a criminal investigation. Modern forensic examinations which could corroborate the victims’ reports and secure evidence are almost never available. As such, torture methods that leave no traces do constitute an additional challenge to hold perpetrators accountable. 76. A further misconception relates to the involvement of public officials. Despite the unambiguous wording of the Convention, I encountered a lack of awareness for the scope of the accountability of State agents on numerous occasions. Public officials or any other persons acting in their official capacities are under the obligation to intervene whenever severe pain or suffering is inflicted in the circumstances described in article 1. A nonintervention due to acquiescence into an inter-prisoner violence incident is not simply a breach of professional responsibilities but also amounts to an act of torture. It is important to emphasize that the definition contained in the Convention provides for a concept of torture which does not stop at raising the negative obligation towards the State to refrain from the use of torture. The inclusion of the element of acquiescence raises the positive obligation for the State to intervene, not only in prisons, but also in schools and even in the private sphere, for the purpose of combating domestic violence. (ii) Lack of appropriate sanctions 77. One of the main reasons for the continuous practice of torture is its largely inadequate punishment. Despite the obligation to make torture a criminal offense under domestic law and to provide for sentences which would be commensurate to the gravity of the crime, it is disappointing to see that the few perpetrators that are held accountable are 43 44 45 CAT/C/AUT/CO/3, para.6. Human Rights Committee, General Comment 20, para. 5. The Danish Criminal Code does not include a specific crime of torture, but qualifies torture as an aggravated circumstance of a serious or repeated breach of duty or carelessness. This follows the misconception that torture is an aggravating factor for e.g. injuries, and not conversely. See A/HRC/10/44/Add.2, para 15. 23