A/HRC/52/30 the deterrent effect of the prohibition itself; (c) enhance the ability of responsible officials to track the specific crime of torture and (d) enable and empower the public to monitor and, when required, to challenge State action as well as State inaction that violates the Convention”.54 In addition, codification will enable and improve torture victims’ access to justice and redress. Not recognizing a crime of torture can serve to hide the number of cases of officially perpetrated torture. 40. Apart from the lack of an explicit crime or variations on the article 1 definition, the most common shortcomings in national legal frameworks include: qualifying torture as a crime only where committed as part of a crime against humanity or a war crime and not providing for torture outside these contexts (Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho and Uruguay); limiting the public actors who can be prosecuted for such crimes, such as prison officials (Ghana); or limiting the purposes of torture to particular contexts, such as interrogation (China, Kuwait and the Sudan). A few countries have excluded the purpose of “discrimination” from the crime of torture (Uganda). The granting immunity, full or partial amnesty or applying a statute of limitation, which are prevalent practices, serve to protect perpetrators from prosecution. Some systems continue to permit the defence of following superior orders, which cancels out individual criminal liability. Of those States that have not yet criminalized torture as an autonomous crime, several have added “torture” as an aggravating factor appended to other crimes and, as such, increased the applicable penalty for their commission (Côte d’Ivoire, Denmark and Mozambique). 41. A few States have decided to list the type of acts that constitute torture in appendices or interpretative provisions (Maldives and Uganda). While such lists can provide legal clarity on what constitutes torture, they can never be exhaustive. In the Americas, owing to the slightly varied definition of torture in the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, seven countries have included “methods intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or diminishing his/her capacities even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish” in lists of prohibited acts.55 42. The Human Rights Committee has stated that those who refuse to obey orders must not be punished or subjected to adverse treatment. 56 A growing number of States have removed the defence of following superior orders. 57 Non-reporting of torture has been criminalized as a separate offence in Armenia,58 while failing to prevent torture has been criminalized explicitly in Ecuador. 59 Other positive trends include explicit reference to a broad list of categories of discrimination to be prohibited as a reason for torture, including political opinion, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or other protected characteristics.60 As a good practice, a number of States have made it clear that rape and sexual abuse are part of a category of acts amounting to torture,61 while other countries make the perpetration of rape or other sexual violence an aggravating circumstance to the offence of torture.62 Torture based on sexual orientation or gender identity is considered an aggravating factor in sentencing in Ecuador and Mexico. 43. It is well-established that omissions that are deliberately inflicted on a victim causing severe mental or physical suffering can also constitute torture.63 In the view of the Special Rapporteur, such omissions (such as purposefully depriving a prisoner of medical treatment, food or sleep) is still prosecutable as an “act” for the purposes of the element of actus reus in ordinary criminal law. Threats shall also be prosecuted. 44. Wider definitions than that in article 1 of the Convention are favoured by an increasing number of States, especially in countries in Africa and Latin America, to reflect specific 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 10 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007), para. 11. Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 13. Australia and Dominican Republic. Submission by Armenia. Submission by Ecuador. Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda. Morocco and South Africa. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 3 (2012), paras. 3 and 23. GE.23-03126