Related Rule
Australia
Practice Relating to Rule 90. Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states that civilians shall “not be subjected to harsh, cruel or degrading treatment”. It also states that after the capture of a combatant, “no physical or mental pressure may be exerted in order to extract further information”. With regard to prisoners of war, the manual provides that “no torture or other forms of physical or mental coercion may be employed”. It also states that crimes of torture or inhuman treatment of protected persons warrant the institution of criminal proceedings. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, §§ 603, 709, 713 and 1305(a).
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) prohibits physical and mental torture, inhuman treatment or brutality and states that “torturing or inhumanely treating protected persons”, “wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health of protected persons” and “mistreating PW [prisoners of war] … torturing, subjecting them to inhuman treatment” are grave breaches which warrant the institution of criminal proceedings. 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, §§ 945, 953, 1022, 1219, 1221 and 1315(a)–(b) and (n).
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
The following acts are prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever:
• Violence to the life, health or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:
– torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental;
• outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment …; and
• threats to commit any of the foregoing acts. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 9.46.
The manual also states with regard to the general treatment of protected persons in both their own territory and occupied territory that “torture … [is] forbidden”. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 9.58.
In its chapter on “Prisoners of War and Detained Persons”, the manual states: “No physical or mental torture, or any other form of coercion may be inflicted on PW [prisoners of war] to obtain information of any kind.” 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 10.34.
In its chapter on “Occupation”, the manual states with regard to inhabitants of occupied territory:
12.37 Any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons … is prohibited. That prohibition applies not only to … torture … but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.
12.39 Measures for the control of the population which are prohibited include:
• physical or moral coercion, particularly to obtain information;
• brutality. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 12.37 and 12.39.
In its chapter on “Compliance”, the manual states:
Grave breaches under the Geneva Conventions consist of any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Convention:
• torture or inhuman treatment …
• wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 13.25.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commander’s Manual (1994).
Australia’s War Crimes Act (1945) provides that the following are war crimes:
(iv) Torture of civilians,
(ix) internment of civilians under inhuman conditions
(xxx) Ill-treatment of wounded and prisoners of war, including –
(a) transportation of wounded and prisoners of war under improper conditions;
(b) public exhibition or ridicule of prisoners of war. 
Australia, War Crimes Act, 1945, Section 3.
Australia’s War Crimes Act (1945), as amended in 2001, identifies “causing grievous bodily harm” and “wounding” as serious war crimes. 
Australia, War Crimes Act, 1945, as amended in 2001, Sections 6(1) and 7(1).
Australia’s Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 2002, provides: “A person who, in Australia or elsewhere, commits a grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions … is guilty of an indictable offence.” 
Australia, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 2002, Section 7(1).
The grave breaches provisions in this Act were removed in 2002 and incorporated into the Criminal Code Act 1995.
Australia’s Crimes (Torture) Act (1988), as amended to 2001, states:
Offence of torture
(1) Where:
(a) at any time after the commencement of this Act, a person who:
(i) is a public official or is acting in an official capacity; or
(ii) is acting at the instigation, or with the consent or acquiescence, of a public official or person acting in an official capacity; does outside Australia an act that is an act of torture; and
(b) that act, if done by the person at that time in a part of Australia, would constitute an offence against the law then in force in that part of Australia;
the person is guilty of an offence against this Act, punishable, upon conviction, by the same penalty as would be applicable if the person were found guilty of the offence referred to in paragraph (b). 
Australia, Crimes (Torture) Act, 1988 as amended to 2001, § 6, p. 3.
The Crimes (Torture) Act (1988) was repealed by the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Act (2010), which in part amended the Criminal Code Act (1995). 
Australia, Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Act, 2010, Schedule 1, Part 3.
Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute: “genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm”, including torture; crimes against humanity, including torture; and war crimes, including torture and inhumane treatment in international armed conflicts, cruel treatment and torture in non-international armed conflicts, and outrages upon personal dignity in both international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, §§ 268.4, 268.13, 268.25, 268.26, 268.58, 268.72, 268.73 and 268.74.
Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), as amended to 2007, states with respect to war crimes that are grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I:
War crimetorture
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator inflicts severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons; and
(b) the perpetrator inflicts the pain or suffering for the purpose of:
(i) obtaining information or a confession; or
(ii) a punishment, intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) a reason based on discrimination of any kind; and
(c) the person or persons are protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions or under Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions; and
(d) the perpetrator knows of, or is reckless as to, the factual circumstances that establish that the person or persons are so protected; and
(e) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 25 years.
(2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(c). 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended on to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.25, pp. 320–321.
The Criminal Code Act further provides:
War crimewilfully causing great suffering
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator causes great physical or mental pain or suffering to, or serious injury to body or health of, one or more persons; and
(b) the person or persons are protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions or under Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions; and
(c) the perpetrator knows of, or is reckless as to, the factual circumstances that establish that the person or persons are so protected; and
(d) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 25years.
(2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(b). 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended on 1 November 2007, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 177 of 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.28, p. 322.
The Criminal Code Act also states with respect to other serious war crimes that are committed in the course of an international armed conflict:
War crimeoutrages upon personal dignity
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator severely humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of one or more persons; and
(b) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 17 years. 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended on 1 November 2007, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 177 of 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.58, p. 337.
The Criminal Code Act states with respect to war crimes that are serious violations of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and are committed in the course of a non-international armed conflict:
268.72 War crimecruel treatment
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator inflicts severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons; and
(b) the person or persons are not taking an active part in the hostilities; and
(c) the perpetrator knows of, or is reckless as to, the factual circumstances establishing that the person or persons are not taking an active part in the hostilities; and
(d) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an armed conflict that is not an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 25 years.
(2) To avoid doubt, a reference in subsection (1) to a person or persons who are not taking an active part in the hostilities includes a reference to:
(a) a person or persons who are hors de combat; or
(b) civilians, medical personnel or religious personnel who are not taking an active part in the hostilities.
268.73 War crimetorture
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator inflicts severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons; and
(b) the perpetrator inflicts the pain or suffering for the purpose of:
(i) obtaining information or a confession; or
(ii) a punishment, intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) a reason based on discrimination of any kind; and
(c) the person or persons are not taking an active part in the hostilities; and
(d) the perpetrator knows of, or is reckless as to, the factual circumstances establishing that the person or persons are not taking an active part in the hostilities; and
(e) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an armed conflict that is not an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 25 years.
(2) To avoid doubt, a reference in subsection (1) to a person or persons who are not taking an active part in the hostilities includes a reference to:
(a) a person or persons who are hors de combat; or
(b) civilians, medical personnel or religious personnel who are not taking an active part in the hostilities.
268.74 War crimeoutrages upon personal dignity
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator severely humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of one or more persons; and
(b) the person or persons are not taking an active part in the hostilities; and
(c) the perpetrator knows of, or is reckless as to, the factual circumstances establishing that the person or persons are not taking an active part in the hostilities; and
(d) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an armed conflict that is not an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 17 years. 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended on 1 November 2007, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 177 of 2007, Chapter 8, §§ 268.72–74, pp. 349–353.
In the Tanaka Chuichi case before Australia’s Military Court at Rabaul in 1946, the accused had ill-treated Sikh prisoners of war, had cut their hair and beards and had forced some of them to smoke a cigarette, acts contrary to their culture and religion. The Court found the accused guilty of violations of, inter alia, the 1929 Geneva POW Convention. 
Australia, Military Court at Rabaul, Tanaka Chuichi case, Judgment, 12 July 1946.
In its judgment in the Baba Masao case in 1947, Australia’s Military Court at Rabaul found the accused, a Commanding General of the Japanese 27th Army in Borneo guilty of ill-treatment of Allied prisoners of war, as a result of the hardship that they were subjected to while transferring them to another camp. Indeed, many of the prisoners had a precarious state of health, owing to the meagre rations which they had been receiving over a long period and they were also severely ill-treated during the march. 
Australia, Military Court at Rabaul, Baba Masao case, Judgment, 2 June 1947
In the WBR case in 2006, Australia’s Administrative Appeals Tribunal noted:
25. The applicant has acknowledged in his evidence that prisoners being held at Katei Ganai prison [Afghanistan], in the period 1992–1994 when he was working there as a watchman, were tortured during interrogation sessions by their interrogators, and he does not dispute that the infliction of such torture constituted a crime against humanity and a war crime, within the meaning of Article 1F(a) of the Refugees Convention.
26. The Tribunal is satisfied, on the basis of the whole of the evidence before it, that there are “serious reasons for considering” that, in Katei Ganai prison in the period 1992–1994 when the applicant was working there as a watchman, torture was inflicted on prisoners by certain members of the Wahdat party in the course of interrogation sessions, and that, by inflicting that torture, those Wahdat party members committed crimes against humanity and war crimes, within the meaning of Article 1F(a) of the Refugees Convention (see, for example, Articles 7 and 8(2)(c) of the Rome Statute). 
Australia, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, WBR case, Decision of 5 September 2006, §§ 25–26.
In 2009, in the Snedden case – an action for defamation related to an article in a national newspaper alleging that the plaintiff had committed or condoned atrocities in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1991 – the New South Wales Supreme Court held:
102. The plaintiff’s submissions distinguish torture from acts of cruelty, assaults and beatings. That much is accepted. However, the distinction is fundamental to the plaintiff’s contention that, even if certain witnesses who gave evidence of receiving beatings at the hands of, or in the presence of, the plaintiff are accepted, that treatment fell short of torture. The assumption underlying this proposition is that the acts of violence and the mistreatment (if any) meted out by the plaintiff and/or the men under his command are to be considered in isolation, that is, without regard to the physical and mental condition of the victims of these assaults …
103. The defendant’s witnesses on this topic were permitted, over objection, to give evidence of what had happened to them before they arrived at Knin and at the prison, on the basis that their resulting poor state of mental and physical health would have been obvious to anyone who had dealings with them. More importantly, the defendant’s allegation was that the further infliction of pain and suffering on prisoners in this weakened condition constituted torture, not that the assaults alone necessarily did so in every case. That is the basis upon which the evidence of these witnesses falls to be assessed.
126. The evidence … establishes that the plaintiff committed torture and the war crime of torture, either on the basis that the plaintiff himself seriously assaulted [two of the named victims] … both of whom were in a very weak physical and psychological condition, or on the basis that the plaintiff instigated or consented to the infliction of severe pain or suffering upon them and upon [a third named victim]. 
Australia, New South Wales Supreme Court, Snedden case, Judgment, 18 December 2009, §§ 102–103 and 126.
In 2010, in the Habib case, the Full Court of Australia’s Federal Court unanimously held that the “act of state doctrine” did not bar a claim for damages based on the alleged complicity of Australian officials in the alleged acts of torture committed on the applicant by officials of the governments of the United States, Egypt and Pakistan. Black CJ stated:
[8] Torture offends the ideal of a common humanity and the parliament has declared it to be a crime wherever outside Australia it is committed. Moreover, and critically in this matter, the Crimes (Torture) Act [1988] is directed to the conduct of public officials and persons acting in an official capacity irrespective of their citizenship and irrespective of the identity of their government. The circumstance that a prosecution may only be brought against an Australian citizen or a person present in Australia and requires the consent of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth has evident practical consequences, but prohibited conduct is not thereby deprived of its character as a crime nor is the strength of the parliament’s emphatic disapproval of such conduct in any way thereby diminished.
[9] The Crimes (Torture) Act reflects the status of the prohibition against torture as a peremptory norm of international law from which no derogation is permitted and the consensus of the international community that torture can never be justified by official acts or policy.
[10] As well, and again consistently with Australia’s obligations under the [1984] Torture Convention, the parliament has spoken with clarity about the moral issues that may confront officials of governments, whether foreign or our own, and persons acting in an official capacity. It has proscribed torture in all circumstances, answering in the negative the moral and legal questions whether superior orders can absolve the torturer of individual criminal responsibility and whether, in extreme circumstances, torture may be permissible to prevent what may be apprehended as a larger wrong: see the Crimes (Torture) Act, s 11; the Torture Convention, Art 2.
[11] In these circumstances, if – contrary to the view that I share with Jagot J – the question were finely balanced and the common law were faced with a choice, congruence with the policy revealed by the Crimes (Torture) Act and its intended reach to the officials of foreign governments, even when acting within their own territory and under superior orders, points against the application of the act of state doctrine in the circumstances alleged by Mr Habib in the present proceeding.
[12] Consideration of the relevant sections of the Criminal Code, the Geneva Conventions Act and the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions also, in my view, support these observations. 
Australia, Federal Court, Habib case, Judgment, 25 February 2010, §§ 8–12.
Perram J stated:
Section 6 of the Crimes (Torture) Act 1988 (Cth) makes it an offence for a public official outside of Australia to torture a person. Until 26 September 2002, s 7(1) of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (Cth) made it an offence of extraterritorial operation to torture a person protected by the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War adopted at Geneva on 12 August 1949 (the Third Geneva Convention) or the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War adopted at Geneva on 12 August 1949 (the Fourth Geneva Convention). On 26 September 2002, a date of no particular significance, the Commonwealth Parliament determined to relocate the offences relating to the Geneva Conventions from the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 to ss 268.26 and 268.74 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). 
Australia, Federal Court, Habib case, Judgment, 25 February 2010, § 20.
Jagot J stated:
[108] The Commonwealth’s approach is superficially attractive. Whether the language of limitation should be preferred to that of exception, nevertheless, it is apparent that the test which the Commonwealth posits reflects the reasoning in Underhill Underhill v Hernandez (1897) 168 US 250], a decision made in 1897. But the foregoing discussion shows that the jurisprudence of the US and the United Kingdom developed after 1897 in tandem with international law, particularly international law following the exposure of the horrors of the Nazi regime in Europe at the end of the Second World War. Specifically, international humanitarian law has been codified through the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocols of 1977, the Torture Convention has been rapidly and almost universally acceded to, and certain violations of international law (including torture) are recognised to involve contraventions of peremptory norms, or jus cogens, being norms about which all nations agree or are taken to agree and from which no derogation is permitted.
[112] The Crimes (Torture) Act creates an offence of torture. The effect of the legislation is to render torture unlawful under Australian law no matter who engages in it or where it is engaged in, and regardless of whether a prosecution may be commenced and sustained against the alleged torturer. The statute thus reflects and embodies our parliament’s endorsement of the common law’s “extreme revulsion … for the practice and fruits of torture”: Jones at [15]. [Jones v Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of the Saudi Arabia [2007] 1 AC 270; [2007] 1 All ER 113; [2006] UKHL 26]. As submitted for Mr Habib, if proved, his allegations would constitute grave violations of international human rights law. The weight of authority discussed above does not support the protection of such conduct from judicial scrutiny other than in the face of a valid claim for sovereign immunity.
[117] The claim is founded on allegations of torture. The prohibition on torture is an absolute requirement of customary international law. The prohibition is codified in the Torture Convention to which each of the states in question is party (other than Pakistan which is a signatory). It is conduct which the Commonwealth Parliament has proscribed by legislation expressed to apply throughout the world and to all persons, consistent with the international consensus that the torturer must have no safe haven. In terms of the “degree of codification or consensus concerning a particular area of international law” … the prohibition on torture is an agreed absolute value from which no derogation is permitted for any reason. The prohibition is a clearly established principle of international law … . The international community has spoken with one voice against torture. 
Australia, Federal Court, Habib case, Judgment, 25 February 2010, §§ 108, 112 and 117.
On 9 August 2005, in response to a Question on Notice in the Senate regarding the impending trial of Australian citizen, David Hicks, before a US Military Commission, “Can the Minister confirm that Australia supports international action against torture and deplores torture whenever and wherever it can?”, the Minister representing the Attorney-General stated: “Yes. The Attorney-General [Mr Philip Ruddock] has publicly stated that the Australian Government does not condone the use of torture or cruel or inhumane or degrading treatment in any form.” 
Australia, Senate, Minister representing the Attorney-General, Question on Notice: Mr David Hicks, Hansard, 9 August 2005, p. 173.
On 4 October 2005, in response to a Question on Notice in the Senate regarding Australia’s policy on rendition, “Does the Government approve or disapprove of the United States of America’s policy of rendition, that is, kidnapping people for transfer to, and interrogation in, third countries which permit torture?”, the Minister representing the Attorney-General stated: “The Government’s policy is that persons should only be transferred to another country through recognised legal means or where legal authority exists, such as extradition.” 
Australia, Senate, Minister representing the Attorney-General, Question on Notice: Rendition Policy, Hansard, 4 October 2005, p. 86.
On 7 November 2005, following a Question on Notice in the Senate regarding the impending trial of Australian citizen, David Hicks, before a US Military Commission, the Minister representing the Attorney-General responded, in part, to criticisms that statements obtained from detainees under alleged torture may be admitted in evidence:
The Military Commission is required to consider the weight of any evidence before it. Any evidence obtained under duress would have minimal probative value. We would expect that any allegations of mistreatment which may be raised by Mr Hicks in his defence will be properly analysed and determined in accordance with accepted principles and Military Commission procedures. United States authorities have previously advised that the manner in which evidence was obtained will be relevant to determining whether it is admissible. In accordance with the Military Commission rules regarding the review of trials, there is also scope for a case to be dismissed on the grounds that a conviction based on evidence obtained as a result of torture is unfair or insufficiently based on reliable evidence.
The Australian Government does not condone the use of torture. It supports international action against torture and deplores such behaviour wherever and whenever it can. Australia has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which proscribes torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Australia has also ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 
Australia, Senate, Minister representing the Attorney-General, Question on Notice: Mr David Hicks, Hansard, 7 November 2005, pp. 202–3.
Australia’s Crimes (Torture) Act (1988), as amended to 2001, states:
3 Interpretation
(1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
act of torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a) for such purposes as:
(i) obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession;
(ii) punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(iii) intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(b) for any reason based on discrimination of any kind;
but does not include any such act arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (being the Covenant a copy of the English text of which is set out in Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986). 
Australia, Crimes (Torture) Act, 1988, as amended to 2001, § 3, p.1.
The Crimes (Torture) Act (1988) was repealed by the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Act (2010), which in part amended the Criminal Code Act (1995). 
Australia, Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Act, 2010, Schedule 1, Part 3.
In 2009, in the Snedden case – an action for defamation related to an article in a national newspaper alleging that the plaintiff had committed or condoned atrocities in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1991 – the New South Wales Supreme Court held:
96. … Before passing to a consideration of the evidence … it is convenient to address what constitutes torture, both in general terms and as a war crime.
100. [The] definition [of torture that] appears in the Statute of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia … is based upon the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. That Convention was adopted by the Schedule to the Crimes (Torture) Act 1988 (Cth) wherein:-
the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
101. It is apparent that torture within the meaning of the Crimes (Torture) Act goes beyond the infliction of severe pain or suffering by a person acting in an official capacity. It extends to the infliction of severe pain or suffering at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of such a person. It is appropriate, in my view, that this construction of the term “torture” is applied for the purposes of these proceedings, in preference to that relied upon by a foreign tribunal in an unrelated matter. It does not include an omission, but the relevant inclusive prohibited purposes are substantially the same. 
Australia, New South Wales Supreme Court, Snedden case, Judgment, 18 December 2009, §§ 96 and 100–101.