A/HRC/13/39 specialized treatment centres where they feel secure. The amount of monetary compensation must therefore include any economically assessable damage, such as the costs of long-term rehabilitation measures and compensation for lost opportunities, including employment, education and social benefits. In addition to reparation tailored to the needs of the individual victim, States are also obliged to adopt more general guarantees of non-repetition, such as taking resolute steps to fight impunity through, for example, the revision of amnesty laws, the establishment of independent investigation units or promotion of the observance of codes of conducts for law enforcement officials. 58. In practice, the right to a remedy and adequate reparation for victims of torture is either non-existent or severely limited, and adequate reparation is almost never provided. In addition, a common problem is that victims and relatives of victims often do not enjoy legal standing in relation to allegations of torture and are therefore prevented from claiming reparation. If at all, medical, psychological and social rehabilitation is usually not provided by Governments responsible for the torture inflicted but by private organizations, usually in the countries that granted asylum to the victims. V. Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 59. The Special Rapporteur’s mandate is not only about torture, but also includes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. During the tenure of his mandate, much of his attention — and many of his thematic reports — has been devoted to issues relating to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including privately inflicted violence, corporal punishment and conditions of detention. The following are some brief remarks in relation to the most salient questions arising in this regard. A. Distinguishing cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment from torture 60. Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and relevant provisions of regional human rights treaties prohibit not only torture, but also cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which is separately proscribed in article 16 of the Convention against Torture. As is the case of the prohibition of torture, the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is non-derogable. While the Convention against Torture expressly defines torture, there is no such definition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in international treaties. Consequently, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is commonly distinguished from torture with reference to article 1 of the Convention against Torture. However, as the Special Rapporteur has argued before,13 the distinguishing factor is not the intensity of the suffering inflicted, but rather the purpose of the conduct, the intention of the perpetrator and the powerlessness of the victim. Torture constitutes such a horrible assault on the dignity of a human being because the torturer deliberately inflicts severe pain or suffering on a powerless victim for a specific purpose, such as extracting a confession or information from the victim. Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, on the other hand, means the infliction of pain or suffering without purpose or intention and outside a situation where a person is under the de facto control of another. It follows that one may distinguish between justifiable and non-justifiable treatment causing severe suffering. Examples where causing severe suffering may be justifiable are the lawful use of force by the police in the exercise of law enforcement policies (e.g. arrest of a criminal 13 GE.10-10042 See E/CN.4/2006/6. 15