A/HRC/52/30 by a public authority, the punishment should take into account the special responsibility that public authorities play in society. Higher penalties may be due for those exercising superior orders or command responsibility. Based on the concluding observations of the Committee against Torture, it is indicated that an appropriate custodial sentence for the crime of torture ranges from 6 to 20 years’ imprisonment105 and that one year is inadequate.106 In the Special Rapporteur’s research for the present report, she found a wide spectrum of sentences, with little global consistency. Some countries impose lower penalties that are not in alignment with the range recommended by the Committee against Torture, while many States have higher penalties. 70. At a minimum, no punishment shall be cruel, inhuman or degrading. Corporal punishment is prohibited.107 Fines on their own are incompatible with article 4 (2) of the Convention; likewise, conditional sentences or probation are considered not to reflect the gravity of the offence at hand.108 Sentencing of juveniles involve additional considerations.109 71. As to State practice, States frequently provide heavier penalties for “aggravated circumstances”, such as when torture has caused death or permanent disabilities, permanent loss of the function of organs or serious mutilation, involved rape or sexual violence or was inflicted on a pregnant woman or a minor (Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Maldives, Norway, Panama and Rwanda). The Dominican Republic imposes higher penalties when the crime is committed against people in specific public positions, including magistrates or public authorities. 110 Should a victim commit suicide as a result of torture, higher penalties are handed down in São Tomé and Principe and a number of States impose life imprisonment (Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea and Togo). Norway imposes the same penalties for any person who aids and abets torture. Some laws, rightly, impose bans on holding public office if convicted of torture (Equatorial Guinea). 72. It is the view of the Special Rapporteur that aggravating circumstances or the impact of the crime of torture on the victim should be taken into account in sentencing as it can reflect the severity of the crime itself. Where this is not the case it can lead to frustration and a sense that justice was not served, however all factors must be weighed. What is important is that all relevant considerations are applied consistently and within sentencing guidelines. Factors such as remorse, prospects of rehabilitation or reoffending and the need for deterrence and community protection, should all be taken into account. Courts imposing penalties must have adequate guidance in order to achieve reasonable consistency and the rights of the accused must be respected. 73. While amnesties and immunities are never to apply to the offence of torture, any pardons, early release or other measures that reduce sentencing for good behaviour or clemency or prepare perpetrators for release back into the community should apply to those convicted of torture as in any other crime. However, such measures must not be used to exonerate convicted persons after a fair trial, negate the commission of the crime or result in impunity. In other words, they must not act as de facto amnesties. In a decision against Spain, the Committee against Torture ruled that pardoning civil guards who had been found guilty of torture by an independent court violated victims’ rights under article 4 (2) of the Convention.111 In that case the pardon almost totally exonerated their sentences. 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 GE.23-03126 Chris Ingelse, The UN Committee against Torture: An Assessment (Kluwer Law International, 2001) p. 340 and following. CAT/C/AUT/CO/6, para. 10. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 5. A/65/273, para. 59. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules). Submission by the Dominican Republic. See Committee against Torture, communication No. 212/2002. 17