A/HRC/13/39 to the infliction of injuries.7 However, the definition does not require any bodily injuries, let alone any lasting impairment. Injuries can be an aggravating factor, but torture should never be reduced to its consequences. With good reason, the drafters of the Convention against Torture included “whether physical or mental” into the definition of torture. Psychological ill-treatment is by no means less severe than physical abuse. Definitions of torture that leave out its psychological dimension encourage the use of mental ill-treatment and provide a loophole resulting in impunity. Furthermore, the insistence on injuries is particularly worrying, since more and more torture methods are designed not to leave any traces. 47. It is disappointing to see that the few perpetrators who are held accountable are punished with sentences far below what is required by international law. While the Committee against Torture, in its State reporting procedure, has interpreted the obligation for an adequate punishment as a long-term prison sentence with a penalty of up to 20 years,8 the Special Rapporteur’s fact-finding missions have shown that perpetrators, if held accountable at all, were predominantly punished with disciplinary sanctions and light or suspended prison sentences. The forms of discipline do not normally go beyond demotion, delayed promotion or pay freeze. These sanctions are an affront to the victims, lack any meaningful acknowledgment of their suffering, are devoid of any deterrent effect and, therefore, put further persons at risk. 2. Lack of effective complaints mechanisms 48. The Special Rapporteur is unable to think of any other mechanism where the gap between the protection required by international instruments and the actual situation is as glaring. One of the most vivid, indicative and telling situations he encountered during one of his missions was where he found more than 70 detainees crammed into a small, badly lit and filthy cell, who had been there up to more than two years, and who had not once left the cell since their arrival. They were held incommunicado, some secretly, and many reported how they were most seriously tortured by the police during arrest and interrogation. None of them had received any medical treatment. This was just a few metres behind a human rights desk, which had been set up to receive complaints by detainees. Several officers were on duty at the desk, their workplace was adorned with a complaints box and posters on the rights of detainees. They had never received a single complaint from a detainee.9 These human rights desks are only one example of numerous utterly ineffective complaints mechanisms. Whenever the Special Rapporteur receives information from officials that torture is not an issue in their country because no complaint has ever been filed, that has, in practice, been a clear signal that the opposite is the case – that torture is routine and that detainees are too afraid or simply unable to complain. 49. The Special Rapporteur has ample grounds to believe that the vast majority of violations are never reported by detainees, including because they are often not aware of their right to complain. In a context of detention frequently characterized by violence and other abuse, it seems beyond imagination for many detainees that someone could listen to their allegations. If detainees know about their right to complain and the actual existence of a complaints mechanism, the fear of reprisals and lack of confidence in the overall functioning of the system may silence them. Normally, there is no complaints body sufficiently independent from the authority which is in charge of holding the detainees. 7 8 9 12 See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20, para. 5. See also Chris Ingelse, The UN Committee against Torture: An assessment (The Hague/Boston/London, Kluwer Law International, 2001), p. 342. A/HRC/7/3/Add.4. GE.10-10042